Anderson v. Reidsville Amusement Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1938
• Docket Number: 17.
• Citation: 195 S.E. 386,213 N.C. 130
• Parties: ANDERSON v. REIDSVILLE AMUSEMENT CO., Inc.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

195 S.E. 386

213 N.C. 130

ANDERSON v. REIDSVILLE AMUSEMENT CO., Inc.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 2, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Rockingham County; F. D. Phillips Judge.

Action by Mrs. C. M. Anderson against the Reidsville Amusement Company, Inc., for injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell on an oily spot on the floor of defendant's theater. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Upon motion for nonsuit, evidence must be viewed in the most favorable light for plaintiff, and, if there is any competent evidence tending to prove facts in issue, case must be submitted to jury.

This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury due to a fall in defendant's theatre. It was alleged that defendant had negligently placed a quantity of oil or greasy substance on the floor, by reason of which plaintiff, a patron, was caused to slip and fall, sustaining serious injury.

The testimony of the plaintiff tended to show that she in company with Mrs. Peeples purchased a ticket at the front box office of defendant's building and entered the theatre; that between the box office and the main auditorium was the foyer or lobby, about eight feet wide, with a stairway leading upward to the balcony; that plaintiff and her companion walked down the right aisle of the main auditorium, and finding all seats filled, turned and walked back up the aisle to the foyer, and turned to the left to go up the stairs to the balcony-about three steps from the aisle-when she slipped and fell on her left side. Plaintiff testified: "I looked down in front of me where my foot had slipped and my foot print was there and some grease or oily substance right in that spot and a whole lot more there than any other place in the foyer. I could see more at that particular place than anywhere else in the foyer. Mrs. Peeples and an attendant of the theatre helped me up the stairs and I was in considerable pain. The substance on the floor there was an accumulation of some kind of grease. It was dark, smudgy all along the side of my hose and shoes as if it might have been some kind of dark grease. That was not on my clothes when I went into the theatre. Right in front of where I had fallen I looked down in front of me and there was kind of a print of my slipper where I had slipped and it seemed to be a little more right there in that particular spot than in the rest of the foyer. I could plainly see where my foot had slipped. The light was very dim in the foyer; there was a little lamp over in the corner. It didn't reflect the light down on that floor. I think the place where I fell was covered with a rubberized linoleum. I was watching where I was walking. I had on low heel sandals. I had seen other folks, other patrons, going in the theatre walking over this rubberized linoleum just as I went in before, several of them. I did not see anybody else except myself step where that accumulation of that stuff was on the floor. It wasn't in the middle of the place; it was closer to the wall than the middle of the space. In (I was) coming out of the aisle to go up the steps when I stepped in it. The light they had up there had a small globe in this lamp, had a shade on it, a shade that came down over the light. It throwed the light on this little landing, but not down on the foyer. There was no light that I could see the floor plainly in the foyer. I walked as I usually did when I came out of that aisle and started upstairs. I looked where I was going."

Mrs Peebles testified (by deposition) in substantial support of plaintiff's evidence as to the circumstances of plaintiff's fall. She further testified without objection: "The floor to the foyer was covered with rubber. The rubber on the floor of the foyer had been waxed it was very slick and shined like glass. The floor was slick and difficult to stand upon. The attendant and I helped Nannie Worth (the plaintiff) up and I had a hard time keeping my footage. Mrs. Anderson slipped and fell on her left side. She fell to the floor. She fell on her left side and could not get up. A young black-haired boy named Charles Phipps, an attendant there, and myself helped her up from the floor. Charles Phipps told us that the floor had just been waxed and that he thought it was very foolish for the theatre to wax a rubber floor because it made it entirely too slick. It was slippery and was hard to stand on, especially if you turned a corner."

It was also in evidence from defendant's witness that the defendant used liquid floor wax on this rubberized linoleum, and that it had been about two weeks since it was waxed.

Defendant offered evidence tending to show that the rubber composition with which the floor was covered was inspected daily; that it was mopped once or twice a week; that no oil was put upon it; that there was no accumulation of wax, or oil, or sticky substance at any place. Defendant also offered evidence tending to contradict plaintiff's evidence as to the circumstances and effect of her fall, and in contradiction of the alleged statement of one of defendant's attendants.

Defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's evidence and renewed its motion at the close of all the evidence, and duly excepted to the denial of these motions.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damage were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict, defendant appealed, assigning errors.

Sapp & Sapp, of Greensboro, for appellant.

Glidewell & Glidewell and Claude S. Scurry, all of Reidsville, for appellee.

DEVIN Justice.

Was there error in the denial of defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit?

Upon a motion for nonsuit the uniform rule is that the evidence must be viewed in the most favorable light for the plaintiff, and if there is any competent evidence tending to prove the facts in issue, the case must be submitted to the jury. Considering the testimony offered in the instant case in accord with this rule, we are led to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, proximately causing...