Coffee v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 957,957 |
| Parties | C. E. COFFEE, Individually and as next friend of his wife Floy Coffee, and Floy Coffee, Individually, v. F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY and Woolco Department Store. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Francis I. Gandy, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellants.
B. Mills Latham, Dyer, Redford, Burnett, Wray & Woolsey, Corpus Christi, for appellees.
This is a negligence case against a storekeeper. Mr. and Mrs. C. E. Coffee sued F. W. Woolworth Company and Woolco Department Store to recover damages for Mrs. Coffee's injuries she sustained while shopping in defendants' store in Corpus Christi, Texas, on December 15, 1970. In a trial to a jury the plaintiffs received favorable liability and damage findings. The trial court, however, rendered a take nothing judgment, non obstante veredicto, against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appeal.
While shopping in appellees' retail store, Mrs. Coffee tripped and fell over an empty 'gondola' which was situated at the end of a merchandise display aisle. The 'gondola', with a leg at each corner, was five feet square and approximately six inches high. In other words, it was a low table. As a result of her fall, Mrs. Coffee suffered the injuries for which she and her husband request damages.
At the trial of this cause, appellants asserted that the 'gondola' was not readily visible because it was not covered with merchandise, and therefore its color blended with that of the floor of the store. Because the 'gondola' was adjacent to an aisle or walkway, appellants contend that an unreasonably dangerous condition was thereby created. Appellants seek recovery on the theory that appellees were responsible for creating this unreasonably dangerous condition and allowing it to continue to exist; that appellees' conduct was negligent.
In response to special issues, the jury made liability findings that appellees created or maintained a dangerous condition by leaving the 'gondola' in the condition and location where the accident occurred; that appellees knew or should have known of the dangerous condition; that the appellees were negligent in failing to warn Mrs. Coffee of the dangerous condition or to remove it; and that such failure was the proximate cause of the occurrence in question.
Appellant's brief presents five points of error. All of these points are directed at the action of the trial court in granting appellees' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. We will consider all of these points together.
To sustain the action of the trial court in granting a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, it must be determined that there is no evidence on which the jury could have made the findings relied upon. In our review, we must consider only the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion was granted. Every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence is to be indulged in such party's favor. Gentry v. Southern Pacific Company, 457 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.Sup.1970); Leyva v. Pacheco, 163 Tex. 638, 358 S.W.2d 547 (1962).
In order for appellants to prevail, as pointed out in Medallion Stores, Inc. v. Eidt, 405 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.), they must show that appellees:
1. Knew or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered the condition, and should have realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees.
2. And should have expected that their invitees would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect themselves against it.
3. And failed to exercise reasonable care to protect their invitees against the danger.
So it follows that appellants cannot prevail on this appeal unless there is some evidence that appellees placed the empty 'gondola' upon the floor; or knew (or should have known) that the empty 'gondola' was on the floor and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furr's Super Market v. Garrett
...of evidence regarding the time when the 'gondola' was emptied or how long it had been empty before Mrs. Coffee tripped over it." 526 S.W.2d 793 at 795. In reversing the case, Justice Pope discussed how the rule developed that the plaintiff must produce some evidence that the foreign substan......
-
Coffee v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
...The trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and the court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment. 526 S.W.2d 793. The points of error in the court of civil appeals and in this court are that the plaintiff produced more than a scintilla of evidence which su......
-
Grayson v. Anselmo, No. 14-06-01073-CV (Tex. App. 3/11/2008), 14-06-01073-CV.
...was devoid of any direct evidence that Woolworth had actual knowledge that the platform was empty. Coffee v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 526 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1975), rev'd, 536 S.W.2d 539. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, reasoning that—because the......
-
Castillo v. Price Const., Inc.
...of actual knowledge we have allowed jurors to draw from the fact that the defendant created the complained-of condition. In Coffee v. F.W. Woolworth Co., the plaintiff was injured when she fell over a low-lying, empty platform intended to hold merchandise. 536 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.1976). There w......