Driscoll v. Bob Wallace Mercantile Company
| Decision Date | 08 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,709 |
| Parties | AGNES M. DRISCOLL v. BOB WALLACE MERCANTILE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Martin county to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in defendant's store. The case was tried before Julius E. Haycraft, Judge, and a jury. Plaintiff had a verdict of $1,090. Defendant appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Negligence -- care required of shopkeeper as to customers.
1. A storekeeper is under a legal duty to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for use of customers.
Negligence -- action against shopkeeper -- evidence.
2. Evidence examined and held to sustain verdict based on defendant's negligence in not maintaining floor in reasonably safe condition.
Leo J Seifert, for appellant.
Frank E. Dougherty, John W. Flynn, and McCune & McCune, for respondent.
Action by plaintiff, Agnes M. Driscoll, for damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall.
On October 14, 1933, at about 10:30 o'clock in the forenoon, plaintiff, a woman of 59 years, entered the defendant mercantile store in the city of Fairmont in the course of an ordinary shopping excursion. As she walked along the main aisle toward the rear of the establishment she slipped and fell, thereby sustaining the injuries complained of.
About a week or ten days prior to the accident defendant had oiled the floors in its store. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant was negligent in thereafter maintaining the floor in a slippery and dangerous condition.
The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,090. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion was denied, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal is from the judgment.
Only one question is presented: Is the evidence of defendant's negligence sufficient to justify the verdict?
One who keeps a store or shop is bound to exercise reasonable care to maintain it in a safe condition for customers and others who are invited expressly or impliedly to enter for business purposes. 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 6987. There is ample evidence in the record in this case to support the finding that the defendant did not exercise the requisite care in maintaining the floors. There is testimony to the effect that there was free oil on the floor, particularly at the spot where the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff was conducting herself in the usual manner of one intent on examining the goods displayed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial