Brewster v. Morrone

Dissenting Opinion by

Mb. Justice Bok :

There is no doubt that plaintiff was an invitee. He was not on the premises on automotive business, and he always used the same door. A daily iceman was held to be one in Robb v. Niles Bement-Pond Co., 269 Pa. 298, 112 A. 459 (1921). So was a Availing salesman, in Hartman v. Miller, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 143, 17 A. 2d 652 (1941).

One does not ordinarily expect to meet a plank suspended five feet in mid-air.

The majority is based entirely on the idea that this plank Avas obvious. This is contrary to the evidence. Plaintiff testified: “Q. Was it visible? A. .…