Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Randolph
Decision Date | 14 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 4962.,4962. |
Parties | GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. v. RANDOLPH. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John A. Metz, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Oliver K. Eaton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
In this case Mrs. Randolph brought suit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company to recover damages for injury caused by her slipping and falling on its store floor, made dangerous by its alleged negligence. She recovered a verdict, and from a judgment entered thereon defendant appeals. The substantial question involved is whether the trial court was constrained to give binding instructions for defendant.
The proofs tended to show defendant had a provision and meat store which plaintiff patronized. In such store it had a pay telephone which customers used. To reach the phone booth, one's pathway led between the meat cooler and the meat block to which the meat was carried and there cut and the residue returned to the cooler. This passageway defendant used to clean and sprinkle with sawdust, but, in spite of such precautions, the nearness of the meat block to the passage was such that particles of meat and fat flew from the block to the passageway. The proof was that this was the usual, and not the unusual, situation. In that regard a witness, who before the accident went to the store several times a week, testified she had often seen scraps of meat in the sawdust. "Yes, I would say almost always there would be scraps on that floor around there * * * I particularly know I had to be careful in walking there." Another witness testified:
The proof of another customer was:
Still another witness, a boy who worked in the store, testified:
Another witness, who was a meat cutter and who had been employed in the store, testified, as to the presence of meat and bone on the passageway, that "there was pieces of bone and scraps of meat naturally falls off when you are cutting; you can't...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mahoney v. J. C. Penney Co.
...14 N.J.Super. 200, 83 A.2d 334; Randolph v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C., 2 F.Supp. 462, enforced Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Randolph, 3 Cir., 64 F.2d 247; Barakos v. Sponduris, supra; Hubbard v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 221 Minn. 133, 21 N.W.2d If the jury or the trier of ......
-
American Nat. Bank v. Wolfe
... ... 1, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 1045, 17 Ann.Cas. 576 and ... notes; Randolph v. Great A. & Pac. Tea Co., 3 ... Cir., 64 F.2d 247 ... ...
-
American Nat. Bank v. Wolfe
...L.R.A.,N.S., 1118; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L. R.A.,N.S., 1045, 17 Ann.Cas. 576 and notes; Randolph v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 3 Cir., 64 F.2d 247. (b) After carefully reading the evidence we are of the opinion that the plaintiff, when she began to descend this s......
-
Taylor v. McCowat-Mercer Printing Co.
...1118; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L. R.A.,N.S., 1045, 17 Ann.Cas. 576, and notes; Randolph v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 3 Cir., 64 F.2d 247: — "`A person who goes upon premises for business purposes is not deprived of the right to protection against defects by ......