Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scroggins
Decision Date | 09 March 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 12701.,12701. |
Citation | 140 F.2d 718 |
Parties | SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. v. SCROGGINS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert George Winter, of St. Louis, Mo. (Roscoe Anderson, William R. Gilbert, and Anderson, Gilbert, Wolfort, Allen & Bierman, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Douglas H. Jones, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and HULEN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages to William Scroggins for personal injuries suffered as a result of a fall over boxes which had been placed in the aisle of defendant's store by its employees.
On the morning of May 29, 1941, at a few minutes past 10 o'clock, plaintiff, William Scroggins, his two sons, Bill and Joe, and a friend, William Reiter, entered the Sears Roebuck store on Grand Avenue in St. Louis and descended the stairway leading to the basement so that one of the sons might purchase some paint and a gadget for putting pin stripes on an automobile. The paint counter extended along the south wall of the basement, and leading into and forming a "T" with an east and west aisle parallel and adjacent to the paint counter was a north and south aisle, its sides formed by a dishware counter on the east and a glassware counter to the west. Plaintiff and his party proceeded down the north and south aisle to the paint counter. While Bill Scroggins was buying the desired items, a sticker placed on the paint counter and bearing the legend "God Bless America" caught plaintiff's fancy, and he turned and walked back north three or four steps so as to get a "distance look" at the emblem. Then he turned again toward the paint counter and with his left hand resting on the dish counter requested that the son, Bill, purchase an emblem characterized by its "golden glow." After the son had complied with the request, Reiter and plaintiff's sons started along the north and south aisle toward plaintiff on their way out of the store. As one of the sons drew even with plaintiff, plaintiff began to turn to leave the store and tripped backwards, falling over three boxes of glassware which had been placed in the aisle, and severely injured his back.
Defendant, appellant here, assigns as error the overruling of its motions for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff-appellee's case and at the conclusion of the evidence, and of the denial by the trial court of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, so that this appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. Appellant's contentions are that plaintiff did not prove that the boxes in the aisle caused his fall; that the evidence justified two inferences — one that the fall was caused by the boxes, the other that the fall was caused by a diseased condition of the plaintiff, which would preclude defendant's liability, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
(1) Appellant argues that there was no definite proof that the boxes caused Scroggins to trip and fall, contending that the testimony did not clearly show exactly what Scroggins did with his feet before he fell, and that he nowhere testified that any part of his body touched the boxes before the fall. However, from an examination of the testimony we are persuaded there is substantial evidence of such causal connection, making the question one for the jury.
Plaintiff testified in part as follows:
* * * * *
.
On cross examination by defendant's attorney, after stating that he had been standing in the aisle as the boys started toward him, plaintiff continued:
"I started to make the quarter back step, to turn with my right foot.
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
Defendant continued cross examination and introduced depositions and asked plaintiff if he had made the same answer to the same questions therein as follows:
Further along the same colloquy is repeated, and plaintiff answered:
"* * * I aimed to turn to go with them, and it tripped me."
Joe Scroggins testified:
"
The deposition of Harry B. Schwartz, superintendent of the store at the time of the accident, was introduced in evidence. He testified as follows:
* * * * * *
* * * * *
It would unduly and unnecessarily lengthen this opinion to further set out the large amount of testimony of similar nature and import given by a number of other witnesses called by the parties. It is our conclusion that the over-all and cumulative effect of such testimony warranted the submission of the question to the jury. Defendant's assertion that if plaintiff had actually fallen backwards over the boxes, he would have used some such phrase in testifying as, "As I stepped back, I felt something with my leg", overlooks individual differences in modes of expression and description. The phrases utilized by plaintiff adequately described the relationship between the boxes and his fall and effectively show that the boxes were responsible therefor. He testified that "something tripped me" and the position of his feet when he regained consciousness clearly suggests that the boxes were the "something" that tripped him. There is just as much merit in the phraseology employed by appellee with respect to establishing that the boxes caused his fall as there is in the form suggested by appellant, and it would be far from reasonable to require plaintiff to use any specific form of testimony to establish his cause of action.
(2) Appellant takes the position that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dowell v. City of Hannibal
...Barken v. S. S. Kresge Co., Mo.App., 117 S.W.2d 674; Stewart v. George B. Peck Co., 234 Mo.App. 864, 135 S.W.2d 405; Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Scroggins, 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 718. Applying the above mentioned rule to the facts in the case at bar, we find ourselves unable to say that reasonable min......
-
Bartels v. Cair-Dem, Inc.
...need not be conclusive. Brower v. Quick, 249 Iowa 569, 575, 88 N.W.2d 120, 123, and citations. See also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scroggins, 8 Cir., Mo., 140 F.2d 718, 723. We need not consider whether defendant would be negligent if an employee left the drawer where a child or a customer wit......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Powell
...fairly deducible from such facts. Lumbra v. United States, 290 U.S. 551, 552, 54 S.Ct. 272, 78 L.Ed. 492; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scroggins, 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 718, 723; F. H. Peavey & Co. v. First National Bank of Dickinson, 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 815. Problems presented by conflicting evidence or......
-
Montgomery Ward & Company v. Steele
...v. Safeway Stores, 236 F.2d 29 (8 Cir., 1956); Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, 308 S.W.2d 617 (Mo., 1957); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scroggins, 140 F.2d 718 (8 Cir., 1944). There was evidence in this case to the effect that Joseph Lutes, appellant's retail warehouse manager, had knowle......