Bowden v. S.H. Kress & Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1930
• Docket Number: 103.
• Parties: BOWDEN v. S. H. KRESS & CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

152 S.E. 625

198 N.C. 559

BOWDEN v. S. H. KRESS & CO.

No. 103.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 2, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Wayne County; Moore, Special Judge.

Action by Mamie Carr Bowden against S. H. Kress & Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

Where customer fell on floor of store, question whether oily condition of floor had existed for such length of time as to have been discovered by exercise of ordinary care held for jury.

The defendant is engaged in operating a mercantile business in the city of Goldsboro, N.C. The stock of merchandise carried by defendant was arranged on tables, counters, and shelves for the purpose of effective display. There were several aisles in the store, and the defendant from time to time used a floor dressing or floor oil upon the aisles for the purpose of keeping down dust.

The plaintiff alleged that on the afternoon of December 11, 1926 she visited the store of defendant for the purpose of making certain purchases of merchandise. After purchasing some needles and silk near the entrance, she inquired of a clerk where she could find some paint. She was directed to the rear of the store. She walked slowly down the aisle, examining merchandise displayed upon the tables and counters in order to ascertain if there was any other article which she desired to purchase. While walking down one of the aisles, she testified: "I seemed to have stepped on something very slick and my feet both went out from under me and I fell on my hip. I did not observe the condition of the floor where I fell nor did I later before I was moved from the store. The fall shocked me. *** The slippery floor caused me to fall. I was conscious of the floor being slick because my feet slipped out from under me. There was absolutely nothing to make me slip but the slick floor."

Another witness for plaintiff testified that he was sent for by the plaintiff when she fell and immediately went to the store of defendant. He said: "When I went in Kress' store I observed the floor and it was slippery from oil or some substance used on the floor. It was more noticeable at the point where she fell than at any other point."

Another witness went into the store before the plaintiff was removed and, in describing the place where plaintiff fell, said "It was a soft slippery place and you could see in the oil where her foot slipped in it, the print of her shoe when it turned over. The oil on the floor would have been visible to anyone who had inspected the floor. *** There was lots more oil at this place than there was at any other places in the store. I didn't see anything at all only where the floor had been oiled."

Another witness said: "The floor at that point was slick with a kind of thick oil or something. *** It seemed like it was pretty thick on the floor there."

Another witness said: "The floor looked like it was slicker where she fell than it was at any other point in the store. It seemed like there was more oil there."

The evidence further showed that the defendant had purchased an approved floor oil or dressing which was in general use for the purpose of oiling floors, and that the floors were always oiled on Saturday night after the store was closed. The injury to plaintiff occured on Saturday afternoon, and the floor had been oiled the preceding Saturday night, so that the oil had been on the floor about a week.

There was further evidence to the effect that the floor had been properly inspected and properly oiled, and that there was no more oil at the point where plaintiff fell than at other places in the aisles. Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injury.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff. The damage assessed by the jury was $5,000.

From judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Dickinson & Freeman, of Goldsboro, for appellant.

Ruark & Ruark, of Raleigh, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

What duty does the owner of a store owe to a customer with respect to the condition of the floors of such store?

The general rule deduced from the authorities is that an owner or occupant of buildings, who directly or by implication invites or induces others to enter therein, owes a duty to such persons to exercise ordinary care to keep such premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warning of hidden peril. The owner is not an insurer of the safety of the invitee while on the premises. Leavister v. Piano Co., 185 N.C. 152, 116 S.E. 405; Bohannon v. Stores Co., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356.

Moreover, the judicial utterances upon the subject concur in the view that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to injury resulting from slipping or falling occasioned by the presence of grease or oil upon the floors of a store.

The courts, discussing the...