Edwards v. Cleveland Food, Inc., 53812
| Decision Date | 07 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 53812,53812 |
| Citation | 437 So.2d 56 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert EDWARDS v. CLEVELAND FOOD, INC., D/B/A Sunflower Food Store. |
McTeer & Bailey, Willie L. Bailey and Willie Griffin, Greenville, for appellant.
Lake, Tindall, Hunger & Thackston, W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr., Greenville, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, HAWKINS and ROBERTSON, JJ.
Robert Edwards appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Bolivar County in favor of Cleveland Food, Inc., d/b/a Sunflower Food Store.
Cleveland Food, Inc., a corporation, owns the Sunflower store in Cleveland, and was sued by Edwards following his falling in the store. When Edwards rested his case in chief, the circuit judge sustained Sunflower's motion for a directed verdict for lack of showing any negligence, and entered judgment in favor of Sunflower. Persuaded sufficient evidence was adduced to withstand the motion, we reverse and remand.
This is the only issue addressed on this appeal.
Edwards was a customer in the defendant's Sunflower store in Cleveland on December 20, 1979, when he slipped and fell on a wet place in the store. He sued for injuries sustained in the fall.
Edwards did not know what the wet substance was on the floor. After his fall, the store manager, James Williams, told him it was milk.
Williams and two store clerks assisted Edwards, a corpulent individual, in getting up following his fall. Edwards quoted Williams as stating:
Edwards responded, "Yeah."
Williams then directed some employee of the store: (Emphasis added).
Edwards described the condition on the floor as follows:
And again:
At the beginning of the trial of this cause, Edwards called Williams as an adverse witness, and had asked him a few questions, establishing he had been store manager for several years, and knew Edwards as a customer, when defense counsel interposed an objection.
Counsel then approached the bench, and the record reveals the following:
Edwards called two other customers who were in the store at the time of his fall, but neither furnished any information about the substance on the floor.
Following conclusion of plaintiff's case in chief, the circuit judge sustained a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant.
The declaration in this cause charged the plaintiff "... slipped and fell in spilled milk that was negligently mopped up by an employee of the defendant." In the pretrial order, the plaintiff claims:
On this appeal we apply two well-known principles, the duty of care a store owner owes a customer, and the rule governing granting or denying a motion for a directed verdict.
As to such a store proprietor, in Millers of Jackson, Meadowbrook Road, Inc. v. Newell, 341 So.2d 101 (Miss.1977), we said, at 103: "Furthermore, our law requires that he must remove those hazards of which he has actual or constructive notice."
In Downs v. Corder, 377 So.2d 603, 605 (Miss.1979), we cited 65 C.J.S. Negligence Sec. 63, at 734, as follows:
The duty of reasonable care owed to an invitee includes the exercise of such care and protection of the invitee and the finding of reasonably discoverable conditions which may be dangerous, and if such are found, the occupant of the premises has a duty to correct them, or to warn the invitee thereof.
In this case, on liability, the following questions of fact were for determination: (1) Was there a hazard on the floor? (2) Did the employee know of the condition? and (3) Had they taken reasonably necessary steps to (a) correct it, or (b) warn customers of the danger? 1
In Paymaster Oil Mill Company v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 655 (Miss.1975), we stated:
We have held many times that in passing on a motion for a directed verdict the court must look only to the testimony adduced for the plaintiff and accord truthfulness to it and indulge all favorable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, and if either is sufficient to support a verdict, then the motion for a directed verdict should be overruled. We have also stated in considering a motion for a directed verdict that it should be overruled even though a verdict in favor of the plaintiff would be contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. King v. Dudley, 286 So.2d 814 (Miss.1973). 2
These two principles are so well embedded there is no need to cite additional authority from the litany of cas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardy v. Brantley
...First, we are required to view (and, accordingly, to state) the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Edwards v. Cleveland Food, Inc., 437 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.1983). Second, we do not have before us the evidence the Defendants would have offered had they been required by the trial ......
-
Hickox By and Through Hickox v. Holleman, 56004
...Evans v. Journeay, 488 So.2d 797, 799 (Miss.1986); White v. Hancock Bank, 477 So.2d 265, 269 (Miss.1985); Edwards v. Cleveland Foods, Inc., 437 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.1983). Because the circuit court erred in excluding opinion testimony from a medical expert, we Debbie was born April 9, 1972, t......
-
Caruso v. Picayune Pizza Hut, Inc.
...whether or not the premises were "reasonably safe." Jerry Lee's Grocery, Inc. v. Thompson; McIntosh v. Deas; Edwards v. Cleveland Food, Inc., 437 So.2d 56 (Miss.1983); Lewis Grocer Co. v. Williamson, 436 So.2d 1378 (Miss.1983); F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Stokes, 191 So.2d 411 (Miss.1966). This c......
-
Collins v. Ringwald, 56008
...Jesco, Inc. v. Shannon, 451 So.2d 694 (Miss.1984); Torabi v. J.C. Penney, Inc., 438 So.2d 1354 (Miss.1983); Edwards v. Cleveland Food, Inc., 437 So.2d 56 (Miss.1983); Woods v. Nichols, 416 So.2d 659 (Miss.1982); Jordan v. First National Bank of Jackson, 402 So.2d 825 (Miss.1981); Gee v. Haw......