White v. Mugar

Citation280 Mass. 73,181 N.E. 725
PartiesWHITE v. MUGAR.
Decision Date02 July 1932
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Collins, Judge.

Suit by William L. White, administrator, against Stephen P. Mugar. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained, and judgment ordered for plaintiff.

L. Bean, Jr., of Ipswich, for plaintiff.

J. H. Gilbride, of Lowell, for defendant.

WAIT, J.

This case is before us upon exceptions claimed to an order directing a verdict for the defendant. There was evidence that the plaintiff's intestate suffered injury in consequence of falling upon the floor of the defendant's market. She stated that she fell from slipping upon vegetable leaves lying on the floor. The essential question is whether the evidence will sustain a finding of negligence for which the defendant is liable.

A vegetable counter extended into the store some ten or fifteen feet. It was at the right as one entered. Beyond it was the cashier's cage, and, still further in, a meat counter. Opposite, on the left, were the grocery counters and shelves. The passageway between was from four to six feet wide. It was the custom to oil the floor. At about quarter before twelve on the day of the accident a son of the intestate saw vegetable leaves strewn all along the floor in front of the full length of the vegetable counter. At quarter before one o'clock he met his mother in front of the market. She went in to make a purchase. About five minutes before one o'clock she came out crying and walking with difficulty. She said she had just slipped on some vegetable leaves on the floor of the market and suffered a bad fall. She was helped into an automobile, and the son stepped back into the market to get her bundle. He then noticed vegetable leaves on the floor in about the same condition as he had observed at quarter before twelve.

The defendant owed to customers a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for their use. He, however, is not an insurer of safety. Where; without action for which he is responsible, a dangerous condition arises, the law allows him reasonable opportunity to become informed of the danger and to take measures to remedy it. He is not liable, in such a case, unless he is negligent in failing to inform himself and to take appropriate action. Mascary v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 258 Mass. 524, 155 N. E. 637;O'Leary v. Smith, 255 Mass. 121, 150 N. E. 878;Frost v. McCarthy, 200 Mass. 445, 449, 86 N. E. 918;Sisson v. Boston Elevated Railway (Mass.) 178 N. E. 733.

We think it could be found that vegetable leaves scattered upon the oiled floor of a six-foot passage between store counters constitute an appreciable danger to users of the passage; and that an hour is abundant time for learning of the condition and correcting it. Although it is conceivable that the leaves seen shortly before noon had been cleared away, and that a fresh carpeting had been brushed upon the floor by careless customers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1935
    ... ... Union Tel. Co. v. Blakely, 162 Miss. 859, 140 So. 336; ... Kalb v. Fisher, 139 A. 237; Markman v. Bell ... Stores Co., 132 A. 178; White v. Mugar, 181 ... N.E. 725; McClarken v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 20 P.2d ... 66; Ransom v. Kreeger Store, Inc., 158 So. 600; ... McNeil v. Brown & ... ...
  • Rolanti v. Boston Edison Corp.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 29, 1992
    ... ... was responsible (see White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 73, 181 N.E. 725 [1932] ), it was held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the ... ...
  • Cushing v. Jolles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1935
    ... ... and that he was therefore charged with responsibility ... Walsh v. Adams, 245 Mass. 1, 7, 139 N.E. 379; ... White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 73, 181 N.E. 725; ... Manell v. Checker Taxi Co., 284 Mass. 151, 187 N.E ... 224. The evidence as to the elevator requirements ... ...
  • Bohn v. Hudson & M. R. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1954
    ... ... 550, 104 N.E. 479 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1914); Rosenthal v. Central Garage of Lynn, Inc., 279 Mass. 574, 181 N.E. 660 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1932); and White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 73, 181 N.E. 725 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1932). See also the following annotations: 162 A.L.R. 949, et seq.; 100 A.L.R. 725, 731, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT