Anderson v. Belk-Robinson Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1939
• Docket Number: 14969.
• Parties: ANDERSON v. BELK-ROBINSON CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E.2d 732

192 S.C. 132

ANDERSON v. BELK-ROBINSON CO.

No. 14969.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 28, 1939

Mitchell & Horlbeck, of Charleston, for appellant.

J C. Long and Brantly Seymour, both of Charleston, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant for the recovery of damages for personal injury. The trial resulted in a verdict in her favor, and the defendant appeals from an order overruling its motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict.

The plaintiff alleged that on Monday afternoon, May 23, 1938, she, accompanied by her daughter, visited the defendant's store in the city of Charleston for the purpose of making a purchase of merchandise. Upon entering the store she walked down the North aisle, examining draperies which were displayed upon tables or counters, and as she proceeded down the aisle her right foot slipped and she fell to the floor, sustaining a severe injury to her right elbow. She testified that after she was assisted from the floor she noticed a greasy, slippery area on its surface about three inches wide and about two feet long, and located about three inches from the counter. She did not observe the condition of the floor before she slipped, and it was only after getting up that she noticed that the surface of the floor was covered with a black, oily composition, which is generally sprinkled on floors to allay the dust while sweeping.

The compound used in the store of the defendant is called dust-down, and had been in use for many years. It is made up of sand, sawdust, and a non-lubricating oil, said to be kerosene. The injury to the plaintiff occurred on Monday afternoon, and the floor had been sprinkled with this preparation the preceding Monday night, and swept off, and the floor had been swept every morning thereafter during the week. So that the dust-down had been applied to the floor at least one week before the alleged accident. As stated, this practice of applying the compound to the floor weekly had been going on for years.

The daughter of the plaintiff testified that she was in the store aisle about two steps in front of her mother, and that when she and others had assisted her mother to arise she noticed the black, greasy spot on the floor where her mother had fallen; that a few days after the accident she was again in the store of the defendant, and observed that the discolored spot had been mopped up. Another witness for the plaintiff testified that he had a place of business a few doors from defendant's store; that the plaintiff was his house-keeper, and that immediately after the accident occured she entered his store and reported it to him, and described to him the exact location in the aisle where she had slipped upon the black, greasy surface. This witness examined the black spot carefully within thirty minutes after the accident. He testified in part as follows:

"Q. You say this was a black spot you saw on the floor that afternoon? A. A dark spot.

"Q. Exactly what did you do to determine what it was? A. I run my foot over it and it was slippery, and I reached down with my hand.

"Q. Did you see any of that powdered stuff still on it? A. Like a grit with constant walking over it.

"Q. You say it was black? A. At that time it was black.

"Q. How high above the surface of the floor was it? A. I didn't measure it.

"Q. How much of it was there? A. Just a sprinkle.

"Q. A teaspoonful, do you think? A. I don't know.

"Q. Did you go there to make an examination? A. I went there to see what she slipped on, not how much.

"Q. You could judge how much it was? A. In that space, I would say it took about four or five tablespoonfuls.

"Q. You didn't see any anywhere else, did you? A. No sir."

He further testified that there was no accumulation of oil on the floor, but that in rubbing his hand over the spot, oil adhered to his hand, with a little grit, which was pulverized from being constantly walked upon. He said that he used the same sweeping compound on the floor of his store, and that one or two people had slipped upon it.

There was evidence on behalf of the defendant that once a week, on Monday, after the store was closed, the cleaning compound was lightly sprinkled on the floor, and immediately swept off; that the compound consisted of sand, sawdust, and kerosene, the latter of which is used as a binder, and being a light, non-lubricating oil, quickly evaporates. It was likewise testified that the floor was swept and properly inspected every day. At least two store employees testified that they did not notice any oil stain on the floor immediately after the accident. The manager of the defendant's store had this to say with reference to the method of inspection:

"Q. *** Is there anyone in your store charged with the specific duty of making an examination of those floors each morning? A. All of us men who work in there are required to look over the floor; just like you walk in your office in the morning and look over the floor.

"Q. Just like I would walk in the office and look over the floor? A. I don't know how you look over your floor, but we are required to look over the aisles and see...