## Facts

- Joseph M. Buchl owned a Minneapolis apartment building where Paul Muckler and his 55-year-old wife had lived as tenants for about seven years.
- On August 11, 1962, at about 8:30 p.m., Muckler’s wife fell while descending an interior stairway from the second-floor landing toward the first floor.
- She fractured her hip in the fall, was hospitalized, and died less than four months later.
- Muckler sued Buchl for wrongful death, alleging Buchl negligently failed to keep the stairway properly lit, both in violation of a city housing ordinance and under a common-law duty to maintain reasonably safe common areas.
- A guest who had been visiting the decedent testified that she was descending the stairs directly ahead of the decedent when the fall occurred; the guest described the stairway as “very dark” and said she had to hold the handrail to guide her own movements.
- Evidence showed the stairway had limited natural light from small windows, no electric stairway light was on at the time, and the building owner controlled the light switch.
- There was no evidence of a defect in the stairs, no evidence the decedent had been drinking alcohol, and no evidence of a sudden medical episode that explained the fall; the decedent’s health issues (including controlled diabetes) did not otherwise account for the accident.
- The plaintiff presented testimony from an electrical engineer who took light measurements on the stairway and compared them to minimum illumination levels required by the housing ordinance; the measurements were below the ordinance standard.
- The jury returned a verdict for Muckler in the amount of $17,000. The district court entered judgment and denied Buchl’s post-trial motions. Buchl appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find that Buchl’s failure to properly light the stairway caused the fall that led to the decedent’s death.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on assumption of risk.
3. Whether it was prejudicial error to instruct the jury that the wrongful-death statutory maximum was $35,000 when the cap at the time of the injury and death was $25,000.
4. Whether the trial court erred by allowing a plaintiff’s witness to testify as an expert on the reasonable value of the decedent’s household services, despite the witness not being disclosed at the pretrial conference.
5. Whether the trial court erred by excluding defense evidence offering light measurements taken at a different location as a comparison for how dark the accident stairway was.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence, including testimony about the darkness and expert light measurements, supported a reasonable inference that inadequate lighting caused the fall.
- The court held it was not error to refuse an assumption-of-risk instruction where contributory negligence was submitted and the record did not show a safer alternate route the decedent could have used.
- The court held the applicable wrongful-death damages limit was the $25,000 cap in force at the time of injury and death, but the instruction using the $35,000 cap was not reversible error because the $17,000 verdict was below both limits and no prejudice was shown.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late-identified expert witness to testify about the value of household services.
- The court held the trial court did not err in excluding light-measurement comparisons from another location because the case turned on lighting conditions at the accident site.

## Legal Principles

- Causation in negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the facts make it more likely than not that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury, even without direct testimony of the precise mechanism of the accident.
- A trial court may refuse an assumption-of-risk instruction when contributory negligence is submitted and the evidence does not show the plaintiff had a meaningful, safer alternative to encountering the known danger.
- In wrongful-death actions, the statutory damages cap that applies is generally the cap in effect at the time of the injury and resulting death; an incorrect instruction on a higher cap can be harmless when the verdict is below any potentially applicable cap and prejudice is not shown.
- Trial courts have discretion in managing witness disclosure and in admitting expert testimony; allowing a late-disclosed expert is not reversible error absent unfair prejudice.
- A trial court may exclude comparison evidence (such as measurements taken at a different location) when the comparison does not reliably reflect the conditions at the accident site and risks misleading the jury.

## Conclusion

*Muckler v. Buchl* affirmed a wrongful-death verdict where the jury inferred from testimony and light measurements that a dark apartment stairway caused a tenant’s fatal fall. The court found the evidence sufficient on causation and upheld the trial court’s rulings on jury instructions, the non-prejudicial damages-cap instruction, and the admission and exclusion of competing proof about household-service value and lighting conditions.


Muckler v. Buchl, 150 N.W.2d 689 (1967)