Cash v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., WINN-DIXIE
| Decision Date | 27 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | WINN-DIXIE |
| Parties | O. D. CASH v.MONTGOMERY, INC. 80-721. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James E. Hart, Brewton, for appellant.
Daniel A. Pike of Sintz, Pike, Campbell & Duke, Mobile, for appellee.
The plaintiff, O. D. Cash, brought an action for negligence against Winn-Dixie. The circuit court granted a directed verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff was injured as a result of a fall which occurred about 3 p. m. in the Winn-Dixie store. He was a customer, and had been in the store approximately thirty minutes when the injury occurred. As the plaintiff entered isle # 10 he stepped on a can of food which caused him to fall. The plaintiff testified that earlier he had found a soft drink bottle on the floor in aisle # 3 or # 4.
The store manager testified that after the accident he observed a food can in the vicinity where the plaintiff fell. He examined the can and it showed no sign of having been stepped on or having skid across the floor. He had been in the area where the fall occurred as late as 12:30 p. m. and did not see a can on the floor. The store manager further testified that the store had been swept twice that day, the latest being at approximately 11 a. m.
The rule of law for cases such as this is that there is a duty upon all storekeepers to exercise reasonable care in providing and maintaining a reasonably safe premises for the use of their customers. The storekeeper is not an insurer of the customers' safety but is liable for injury only in the event he negligently fails to use reasonable care in maintaining his premises in a reasonably safe condition. No presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact of injury to the customer. The burden rests upon the plaintiff to show that the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the storekeeper or one of its servants or employees. Actual or constructive notice of the presence of the offending substance must be proven before the proprietor can be held responsible for the injury. See cases collected in Ala. Digest, Negligence, Key # 32(1).
It is not always necessary, however, to offer direct evidence as to the length of time a foreign substance has remained on the floor. In some cases it is permissible to allow a jury to infer the length of time from the nature and condition of the substance. This has been allowed where the substance is dirty, crumpled, mashed, or has some other characteristic which makes it reasonable to infer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Wal–mart Stores Inc.
...premises in a reasonably safe condition.’ ” Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Hall, 890 So.2d 98, 101 (Ala.2003) (quoting Cash v. Winn–Dixie of Montgomery, Inc., 418 So.2d 874, 876 (Ala.1982)). For negligence to attach, the business must have “had or should have had notice of the defect before the time o......
-
Knox v. United States
...had been on the floor for a long enough period of time that the business should have been aware of it. Cash v. Winn–Dixie of Montgomery, Inc., 418 So.2d 874, 875 (Ala.1982). “Direct evidence of the length of time the offending substance has remained on the floor is not required.” Id. An inf......
-
Hale v. Kroger Ltd. Partnership I
...Direct evidence of the length of time the offending substance has remained on the floor is not required. Cash v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 418 So.2d 874, 875 (Ala.1982). "Under Cash, supra, it is permissible to allow the trier of fact to infer the length of time that the substance had re......
-
Mills v. Bruno's, Inc.
...must be proven before the proprietor can be held responsible for the injury.' " 529 So.2d at 986 (quoting Cash v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 418 So.2d 874, 876 (Ala.1982). "The law does not place upon the defendant the duty to take extraordinary care to keep a floor completely dry or free......