Anaple v. Standard Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33998,33998 |
| Citation | 162 Ohio St. 537,124 N.E.2d 128,55 O.O. 424 |
| Parties | , 55 O.O. 424 ANAPLE, Appelle, v. The STANDARD OIL CO., Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a customer of a gasoline service station seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in slipping on a grease spot, which was on the premises of such service station and about which he had not been warned, such customer has the burden of proving
1. That the nature, size, extent and location of such grease spot involved a potential hazard to customers, sufficient to justify a reasonable conclusion that the duty of ordinary care, which the operator of such service station owes to his customers, would require such operator to prevent or remove such a grease spot or to warn his customers about it, and
2. (a) That such sufficient potential hazard was created by some negligent act of the operator of the service station or his employees, or
(b) That such operator or his employees had, or should in the exercise of ordinary care have had, notice of that potential hazard for a sufficient time to enable them in the exercise of ordinary care to remove it or to warn customers about it.
2. Where there is no evidence as to how much grease was in a mere five-inch spot of heavy grease on the floor just outside the door of a lubritorium, apart from testimony of a customer who slipped on it that enough grease got on his clothes to be noticeable and that he later had it cleaned off his shoe and his pants, the potential hazard from such a grease spot is too slight to justify a conclusion that the duty of ordinary care, which the operator of such lubritorium owes to his customers, would require such operator to prevent or remove such a grease spot, or to warn his customers about it.
Plaintiff instituted this action in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County to recover for personal injuries.
The allegations of the petition, so far as they relate to the occurrence claimed to have caused plaintiff's injuries and to the claimed negligence of the defendant, are as follows:
'* * * the defendant * * * in its business operates * * * a Standard Oil gas station at Jefferson Avenue and 17th Street in the city of Toledo * * *.
The allegations of negligence are denied by defendant's answer.
The case was tried before a jury which rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for one thousand dollars. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was overruled and judgment was rendered on the verdict for the plaintiff.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals that judgment was affirmed.
The cause is now before this court on appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, pursuant to allowance of defendant's motion to certify the record.
McAfee, Grossman, Taplin, Hanning, Newcomer & Hazlett, H. Vincent E. Mitchell, Cleveland, and Hayward & O'Connor, Toledo, for appellant.
Robert N. Zanville and Streicher, Gorman & Barone, Toledo, for appellee.
The question to be decided is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify submission of the case to the jury. In deciding that question, we will refer only to those portions of the evidence favorable to plaintiff's contentions.
Defendant's lubritorium had ramps for two cars. When a car was driven onto one of the ramps, the ramp could be raised so as to enable defendant's employees to work under the car in lubricating it. At the entrance of the lubritorium, there were two doors, one in front of each ramp, and the ramps extended almost to these doors. Between these doors there was a small dividing partition with channels 'for the doors to lower and rise in.' This partition was supported on a concrete base about two and one-half feet wide and three inches high which extended in a semicircle in front of the lubritorium. In driving into the lubritorium from the outside concrete drive, there was a slight elevation just before the floor level of the lubritorium was reached.
Plaintiff drove his car onto the righthand ramp to have it lubricated. He got out of the car on the left- hand side and walked towards its rear. Not being able to get out of the door on the side where he came in he started to go out the other door, and, as he moved his left foot from the lubritorium through this entranceway, he stepped on some grease, slipped, and fell. He testified that the grease was on the concrete just outside the lubritorium and about six inches from the concrete base for the partition which has been hereinbefore described. In describing the grease, plaintiff stated that 'it consisted of a heavy grease which had been used for lubricating shacklebolts and lubricating joints where they use a heavy grease,' that it was like the lubrication grease that was in the lubrication guns used by defendant, and that there was a spot about five inches across in a kind of circular shape. Apart from plaintiff's testimony that enough grease got onto his clothes to be noticeable and that he later had it cleaned off his shoe and his pants, there is no evidence at all as to how much grease there was in or on the five-inch circular spot.
This case does differ from Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315, 116 N.E.2d 300, 303, in that there was no evidence of the nature of the substance causing the fall in that case, although that substance is identified in the instant case as heavy grease like the grease used by the defendant in lubricating cars. However, in the opinion by Stewart, J., in that case it is said:
'Paraphrasing a part of the above quotation [from S. S. Kresge Co. v. Fader, 116 Ohio St. 718, 158 N.E. 174, 58 A.L.R. 132]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
...235, 238, 488 S.E.2d 608 (1997); Johanson v. Nash Finch Co., 216 N.W.2d 271, 275 (N.D. 1974); Anaple v. Standard Oil Co., 162 Ohio St. 537, 541, 55 O.O. 424, 124 N.E.2d 128 (1955); Lee v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 600, 605, 114 P.2d 136 (1941); Martino v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 419 Pa.......
-
Edwards v. Hy-Vee, Inc.
...Lion, Inc., 127 N.C.App. 235, 488 S.E.2d 608 (1997) ; Johanson v. Nash Finch Company, 216 N.W.2d 271 (N.D.1974) ; Anaple v. Oil Co., 162 Ohio St. 537, 124 N.E.2d 128 (1955) ; Van Den Bron v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 86 Or.App. 329, 738 P.2d 1011 (1987) ; Martino, Aplnt. v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 4......
-
Smith v. United Properties, Inc.
...Parras v. Standard Oil Co. (1953), 160 Ohio St. 315, 116 N.E.2d 300 (grease or oil on floor of lubratorium); Anaple v. Standard Oil Co. (1955), 162 Ohio St. 537, 124 N.E.2d 128 (grease or oil on floor of lubratorium); Kinman v. R. K. O. Cincinnati Midwest Corp. (1960), 171 Ohio St. 72, 168 ......
-
Stanton v. Marc's Store
...an inference that the failure to warn against it or remove it was attributable to a want of ordinary care. Anaple v. Standard Oil Co., 162 Ohio St. 537, 541, 124 N.E.2d 128 (1955); Johnson, 141 Ohio St. at 589. Only the third option is at issue in this case.CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE {¶15} Appella......