Bury v. The F. W. Woolworth Company
| Decision Date | 11 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | 29,032 |
| Parties | JENNIE BURY, Appellee, v. THE F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1930.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 4; CHARLES A MILLER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. NEGLIGENCE--Dangerous Premises--Knowledge of Oily Floor. Where the operators of a store caused the floor to be oiled and the workmen left it in a slippery and dangerous condition, a jury may properly infer that the operators had knowledge of that condition.
2. SAME--Instructions. Requested instructions contrary to the rule announced in the first paragraph of this syllabus were properly refused.
O. Q. Claflin, of Kansas City, O. C. Mosman, Clay C. Rogers and Paul A. Buzard, all of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant.
W. W. McCanles, of Kansas City, for the appellee.
OPINION
The action is one to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in falling on the floor of a store operated by the defendant. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
The evidence tended to show that the defendant was operating a mercantile establishment in Kansas City, Kan.; that the plaintiff was a customer therein; that while walking in an aisle in the store, she slipped and fell; that the floor, where she fell, had a thick covering of oil on it, making the place slippery; that all of that floor of the store building had been recently oiled; and that in the fall the plaintiff sustained the injuries for which she seeks to recover damages. The defendant did not introduce any evidence, but demurred to the evidence of the plaintiff. That demurrer was overruled.
1. The defendant contends that there was no evidence to show that it had notice of the condition of the floor. The evidence tended to prove that the floor had been recently oiled. A reasonable inference from the fact that the floor had been recently oiled would be that the defendant had caused it to be oiled and therefore knew its condition. That was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had notice of the condition which caused the plaintiff's injury.
2. Defendant requested two instructions, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. Butner
...by dangerous conditions negligently created or maintained by the proprietor or his servants (Reese v. Abeles, supra; Bury v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 129 Kan. 514, 283 P. 917; Trimble v. Spears, 182 Kan. 406, 413, 320 P.2d 1029; J. C. Penney, Inc. v. Kellermeyer, 107 Ind.App. 253, 19 N.E.2d 882......
-
Toole v. House, 7286.
...defendant must have had knowledge. Compare Robinson v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 80 Mont. 431, 261 P. 253, and Bury v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 129 Kan. 514, 283 P. 917. Third. The offered instruction was properly refused because the point was covered by defendant's offered instruction No. 9, which ......
-
Toole v. Paurine Parisian Dye House
... ... defendant must have had knowledge. Compare Robinson v. F ... W. Woolworth Co., 80 Mont. 431, 261 P. 253, and Bury ... v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 129 Kan. 514, 283 P. 917 ... ...
-
Smith v. Mr. D's, Inc.
...supra; Walker v. S. H. Kress & Co., 147 Kan. 48, 75 P.2d 820; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347, 65 P.2d 571; Bury v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 129 Kan. 514, 283 P. 917.) Defendant's contention concerning the insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict is based on the lack of proof that th......