Coyne v. Mut. Grocery Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1935
• Docket Number: Nos. 433, 434.,s. 433, 434.
• Citation: 181 A. 314
• Parties: COYNE et al. v. MUTUAL GROCERY CO., Inc. WHITLEY et al. v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

181 A. 314

COYNE et al.

v. MUTUAL GROCERY CO., Inc.

WHITLEY et al.

v. SAME.

Nos. 433, 434.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 12, 1935.

Appeals from District Court, Union County, First District.

Two actions by James J. Coyne and another, and by Robert Whitley and another, against the Mutual Grocery Company, Incorporated. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Reversed for new trial.

Argued May term, 1935, before TRENCHARD, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

John F. Ryan, of Elizabeth, for appellant.

Joseph I. Bedell and W. S. Angleman, both of Plainfield, for respondents.

HEHER, Justice.

These causes were tried together; and the district court judge, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment in each in favor of the plaintiffs. The gravamen of each state of demand is a breach of the duty resting upon defendant corporation to maintain its store premises in the city of Plainfield in a reasonably safe condition, in consequence of which, the plaintiffs Jane Coyne and Margaret B. Whitley, while in the store by invitation, fell and suffered personal injuries. Specifically, the charge was a dangerous condition resulting from a "foreign substance" upon, and not a structural defect in, the floor of its store premises.

The single question presented is the propriety of the denial of defendant's motion for a nonsuit. By stipulation, a stenographic transcript of the evidence adduced by plaintiffs has been returned as the state of the case. It is therefore to be assumed that the evidence offered by defendant did not supply any deficiency in the plaintiffs' proofs.

These are the essential facts and circumstances: On February 2, 1933, the plaintiffs Jane Coyne and Margaret B. Whitley together journeyed by automobile to defendant's store for the purpose of making food purchases. They entered the premises, but not together, shortly after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Time and space separated and individualized the accidents which befell them therein. Mrs. Whitley testified that, "just inside the (entrance) door," her "feet went out from under" her, and she was thrown to the floor. Mrs. Coyne "slipped" and lost her footing near a fruit stand in the center of the store, but did not suffer a fall. The floor at these points was "oily." Mrs. Whitley said she "slipped on a piece of spinach." There was a vegetable counter "two or three feet" from this point; spinach was "heaped up" on it. Her stockings and underwear were "black," and her "clothing was stained with the black oil," from contact with the floor as a result of the fall. Mrs. Coyne likewise "slipped on spinach." She thus described the condition of the floor: "There was quite a little spinach on the floor. It seemed rubbish at that time I seen the spinach, and I looked down and I seen what I fell on." The floor looked "oily. * * * Refuse of vegetables, and the floor rubbish had not been cleaned up or swept." The defendant was conducting a "sale," and the evidence permits of an inference that the attendance was abnormally large.

The rationale of the doctrine of liability in such cases is negligence. The defendant corporation was not an insurer of plaintiffs' safety while they were using its premises pursuant to the invitation concededly extended. It was incumbent upon it to provide a reasonably safe place for its patrons; it was required to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling the obligation to thus safeguard them. Generally, the condition which results in injury must either (a) have been, in fact, brought to the previous notice of the store operator, or, failing proof of actual notice, (b) have existed for so long a time as to be, in the exercise of reasonable care, discoverable and remediable before the occurrence of the injury. In the absence of such proof, the legal presumption of due care obtains. Schnatterer v....