## Facts

- Helen Rudzinski attended a late movie at Warner Theatres in Milwaukee and exited around 11:30 p.m. on October 10, 1957.
- The theater had an outer vestibule, a middle lobby with a terrazzo floor, and an inner carpeted lobby, separated by multiple sets of double doors.
- As she attempted to leave through the west doors from the middle lobby to the vestibule, she found them locked; an usher near the center doors instructed her to use the center doors.
- After turning and walking a few steps toward the center doors, she fell in the middle lobby.
- She testified that immediately after the fall she observed slippery, wet spots “all around, scattered” near where she fell, roughly 18 inches in circumference.
- She noticed sticky, dirty spots on her coat and stockings with an odor she associated with beer.
- The evening involved large street celebrations related to the Milwaukee Braves’ World Series win; plaintiffs contended beer from celebrants was tracked or spilled into the lobby.
- Mrs. Rudzinski sought damages for her injuries; her husband sought derivative damages.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find the theater negligent, including whether the theater had actual or constructive notice of the wet/beer condition or failed to use ordinary care in inspection and maintenance.
2. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the condition was a substantial factor in causing Mrs. Rudzinski’s fall, making a directed verdict improper.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict for the defendant.
- Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find the terrazzo lobby floor was in a hazardous condition when Mrs. Rudzinski fell.
- A jury could infer constructive notice from circumstantial evidence, including the number and distribution of the wet, sticky spots in a main traffic area and the presence of an usher nearby.
- Plaintiffs’ evidence permitted a finding that the slippery condition was a substantial factor in causing the fall.
- The case was required to be submitted to the jury on negligence and causation.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict against a plaintiff is proper only when, taking the plaintiff’s evidence and reasonable inferences in the most favorable light, the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff.
- In premises-liability cases, constructive notice may be proven by circumstantial evidence; precise proof of how long a condition existed is not always required.
- Evidence of multiple, scattered, characteristic hazards in a primary passageway, combined with nearby employees and surrounding circumstances, can support a jury finding that ordinary care would have discovered and corrected the condition.
- Testimony linking a fall to a slippery condition, supported by immediate post-fall observations of the condition and residue, can permit a jury finding of causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs’ circumstantial evidence of scattered, beer-like wet spots on a theater lobby floor, in an area of expected patron traffic and near an employee, was sufficient to let a jury decide whether the theater failed to use ordinary care and whether that condition caused the fall, so directing a verdict for the defendant was error.


Rudzinski v. Warner Theatres, Inc., 16 Wis. 2d 241, 114 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1962)