Dixon v. Hart, Gen. No. 51M11

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Citation: 344 Ill.App. 432,101 N.E.2d 282
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 51M11
• Parties: DIXON v. HART.
• Decision Date: 20 September 1951

Page 282

101 N.E.2d 282 344 Ill.App. 432 DIXON
v.
HART. Gen. No. 51M11. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Sept. 20, 1951.

Page 283

Combe & Twente, Harrisburg, for appellant.

K. C. Ronalds, Ralph W. Choisser, Harrisburg, for appellee.

BARDENS, Justice.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for $9,000.00 against the defendant, doing business as a department store, in an action at law for personal injuries sustained by her on April 30, 1949, when she slipped and fell on the floor of defendant's store. Defendant's motions for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case and at the close of all the evidence were denied. The defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict or for a new trial were likewise denied. Defendant appeals and asks that the judgment be reversed and judgment entered for the defendant, or, in the alternative, that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for a new trial. For purposes of clarity the parties will continue to be designated as plaintiff and defendant in this opinion.

Plaintiff's complaint, filed September 28, 1949, in substance charges the following: that defendant operated a large department store in the city of Harrisburg wherein it negligently permitted and allowed the floor to become slippery and dangerous, which defendant knew or should have known, and of which fact plaintiff did not have equal knowledge; that when plaintiff walked on the floor she was caused to slip and fall by virtue of said dangerous condition, resulting in serious injuries to her right arm, shoulder and wrist; that as a result thereof she has been damaged in the amount of $10,000.00. Defendant's answer denied the allegations of the complaint as to its negligence and [344 Ill.App. 434] plaintiff's damage. On the trial defendant admitted that plaintiff was an invitee upon the defendant's premises.

The evidence as to the occurrence giving rise to this suit is virtually uncontradicted and presents the following factual picture; plaintiff, a housewife 49 years of age, entered defendant's store about 5:00 P.M. to make a purchase and when in about the middle of the store her left foot slipped and she fell; in falling, her right palm struck the floor with her weight on it, resulting in the injuries complained of; plaintiff was assisted to a chair 25 to 30 feet from where she fell at which spot she rubbed her hand over the floor and found it 'slick'; plaintiff observed a dark mark about a foot and a half long where she fell when her foot had slipped; the floor was asphalt tile and was shown to have been waxed three or four weeks prior to plaintiff's fall. It is on these facts that plaintiff's allegation of defendant's negligence rests.

Defendant contends on this appeal that the evidence does not establish (1) that the defendant was negligent, (2) that any negligence of defendant proximately caused the alleged damages, or (3) that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, and that therefore the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff's evidence and again at the conclusion of all the evidence and in denying defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v.

Page 284

Weighing plaintiff's evidence together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must in view of the issues drawn by the defendant, has she, as a matter of law, established a cause of action against the defendant?

Addressing ourselves to the issue of defendant's negligence we are confronted with the question of the liability of a store to a customer falling upon [344 Ill.App. 435] a floor shown to have been waxed and polished three or four weeks previously. We have...