Bridgford v. Stewart Dry Goods Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1921
• Citation: 191 Ky. 557,231 S.W. 22
• Parties: BRIDGFORD v. STEWART DRY GOODS CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

231 S.W. 22

191 Ky. 557

BRIDGFORD v. STEWART DRY GOODS CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 20, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Third Division.

Action by Nancy Bridgford against the Stewart Dry Goods Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Edwards Ogden & Peak, of Louisville, for appellant.

Humphrey Crawford, Middleton & Humphrey, of Louisville, for appellee.

CLARKE J.

The defendant, now appellee, conducts a department store in Louisville and maintains on the basement floor a checkroom or counter for use of its patrons. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon of July 29, 1919, plaintiff went to this checkroom for her grip, and in walking back to the stairway fell and received serious, if not permanent, injuries. Just a few minutes before this the floor of the basement had been covered about an inch deep with water, as a result of an unusual rainstorm. It is conceded by counsel for plaintiff that the flooding of the floor was not caused by any negligence upon the part of defendant, but it is alleged that as a result thereof the floor of the basement was wet, slick and in an "unsafe and dangerous condition for persons to walk upon and over, and this condition was known to the defendant, its agents, servants, and employés, or could have been known by it and them by the exercise of ordinary care, and was unknown to this plaintiff; that the defendant negligently failed to warn or notify plaintiff of the unsafe and dangerous condition of said floor and negligently failed to place barricades at the entrance to said basement, or otherwise prevent plaintiff from using said floor." These allegations of the petition were denied by the answer, and upon a trial at the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony the court gave a peremtory instruction in favor of the defendant. From the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.

The evidence of plaintiff shows that she was upon the premises by invitation of the defendant, and as a consequence the defendant owed her the duty of using reasonable or ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe condition, but was not an insurer of her safety. Anderson & Nelson Distilleries Co. v. Hair, 103 Ky. 196, 44 S.W. 658, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1822; Branham's Adm'r v. Buckley et al., 158 Ky. 848, 166 S.W. 618, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 861; 29 Cyc. 454.

The evidence shows that immediately upon the flooding of the floor and before plaintiff entered the basement some planks were taken up at one end of same to allow the water to run through, and janitors were put to work mopping up the floor where it was wet; that the basement was well lighted; that there were no barriers erected to prevent plaintiff from going on the floor, and that no one warned or notified her not to do so. Plaintiff testified that she was caused to slip and fall by the wet or damp condition of the floor. Upon cross-examination she was asked and answered the following questions:

"Q. You say when you came down the steps you found the room well lighted? A. It was well lighted; yes.

Q. The floor was perfectly level and in good condition as far as...