The opinion of the court was delivered by: GESELL
This is a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Title 28, § 1346(b), 2671-2680 U.S.C.) claiming damages arising out of an injury to plaintiff under the following circumstances:
Plaintiff, age 65 at the time of the injury, came to the Smithsonian Institute Museum of History and Technology on the morning of February 10, 1965, at approximately 10:15. She was seeking an opinion on two miniature paintings from Dr. Beggs of the Smithsonian, with whom she had an appointment at 10:30, and entered this particular building of the Smithsonian in an effort to locate where Dr. Beggs' office was.
Plaintiff lives in Manassas, Virginia, and travelled by car from Manassas with her friend Mrs. Sinclair. It was raining when she left Manassas and there was a misty rain, or light drizzle, at the time she arrived at the Smithsonian, sufficient for some people to carry umbrellas, but Mrs. Maxwell had none. She was driven up to the Mall entrance and entered, proceeding to cross the foyer. Immediately inside the first door she entered there were corrugated hard rubber mats approximately seven feet wide which she crossed without wiping her feet.
There was marble floor in the foyer beyond the mats. It was necessary for plaintiff to proceed across the marble to continue entry into the building proper. Immediately on stepping upon the marble floor at the far side of the mats, Mrs. Maxwell slipped and fell backwards. Both feet went out from under her and she landed partially on the marble and partially on the mats, with the principal impact on her left hip, cracking her pelvis in two places.
There were no witnesses to the actual fall. However, all possible and responsible care was given plaintiff immediately thereafter by the guards and first aid employees of the Smithsonian.
The foyer was well lighted by light through a number of glass doors as well as center lighting and there were no distracting exhibits. The United States, in answers to interrogatories in evidence and as a result of an investigation, stated that "the floor was partially wet from rain tracked in by visitors" and that the rubber mats were laid on the floor as a precaution taken to prevent persons entering from slipping on the wet floor. Insofar as appears, the mats are a permanent installation. It was the practice of the Smithsonian to have the floor mopped by its custodial employees whenever the guard noted that water was standing on the floor, but the floor had not been mopped by 10:15 on this morning, there being no water standing on the floor.
No proof was offered that others had slipped on the floor on this or similar occasions, that the floor was in fact slippery, or that the Smithsonian had any actual notice that unusual conditions developed when the marble floor became damp.
Plaintiff, a Southern gentlewoman, was seriously hurt, being required to spend some weeks in the hospital and initially suffering serious pain requiring narcotic medication and later other medication to relieve pain. She was in some pain for a considerable period of time and her recuperation required several weeks after leaving the hospital when she first used a walker and then a cane. The details of plaintiff's injury, however, are not material in view of the determination made on the foregoing facts as set forth below.
The United States was under a duty to maintain the building and the floor in a reasonably safe condition. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Williams, 59 App.D.C. 347, 41 F.2d 970 (1930); Rule v. Bennett, D.C.App., 219 A.2d 491 (1966). This duty of reasonable care was owed to the plaintiff whether she be regarded as an invitee or licensee by invitation. McNamara v. United States, D.C., 199 F. Supp. 879 (1961). The questions of law presented are: did a hazardous or unsafe condition exist for such a period of time prior to plaintiff's fall as to constitute constructive notice to the defendant of that condition and give rise to a duty to correct it; was plaintiff's fall proximately caused by the condition which defendant was under a duty to correct?
The mere fact that the floor was damp and that plaintiff slipped and fell is not sufficient to permit her to recover and yet this is all the evidence shows. Ruffin v. Trans-Lux Theatre, D.C.Mun.App., 156 A.2d 678 (1959).
The United States was not on constructive notice of a condition not of its own making. The proof as to the amount of moisture on the floor, the length of time such condition existed, and the apparently permanent installation of the mats does not warrant the conclusion that the United States knew, as a matter of law, that the floor was not in a reasonably safe condition. Doctors Hospital v. Badgley, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 156 F.2d 569 (1946). Therefore, the United States was not ...