F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Freeman
Decision Date | 25 January 1943 |
Docket Number | 35110. |
Citation | 11 So.2d 447,193 Miss. 838 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. v. FREEMAN. |
John F. Frierson, of Columbus, and Jackson, Young & Friend, of Jackson, for appellant.
W L. Sims, of Columbus, for appellee.
The appellee, an employee of the appellant, was injured by a fall received by her while at work at the appellant's store. She brought this action for damages against it, alleging its failure to furnish her with a safe place to work, or rather with a way to, or appliance with which to, do the work. The appellant introduced no evidence except that of a physician which has no bearing on the appellee's fall or the cause thereof. It requested but was refused a directed verdict in its favor. The evidence discloses that the appellant is engaged in the retail mercantile business at Columbus Mississippi, the appellee being one of its saleswomen. Along the wall on one side of one of the rooms in which the appellant's business is conducted are shelves, the top one being beyond the reach of one standing on the floor. Parallel with this wall and shelves is a counter with a shelf under it about two feet from the floor. One of the shelves along the wall projected several inches into the space between them and the counter. Merchandise was stored on these shelves, including the topmost, and it was the duty of the saleswomen when a purchaser desired an article on any of them, including the topmost, to get it for him. No appliance method or way was provided by the appellant for reaching this top shelf. When the appellee was injured she was attempting to get a lamp shade from this top shelf for a customer who was there then and desired to purchase it. In order to do this she stepped with her right foot on the shelf under the counter, placed her left knee on the extension of the opposite shelf, caught hold of a higher shelf with her left hand and raised herself thereby high enough to reach the top shelf. She then caught the lamp shade with her right hand when her left hand slipped from the shelf to which she was holding, causing her to fall to the floor, severely and permanently injuring her back according to her and her physician's testimony.
The method here used by the appellee to obtain this lamp shade was that which the appellant's employees for several years had been accustomed to use with its knowledge and without its disapproval. She herself had been so accustomed and no injury had theretofore resulted therefrom. A former employee of the appellant, a witness for the appellee, also so testified, and in answer to this question:
The appellant's contentions in this connection are, first, that its duty to furnish its employees with a safe place in which, or appliance with which, to work was not here violated, and, second, that the appellee's testimony as to how she received her injury is such that a jury should not be permitted to act on it.
As to the Appellant's Negligence. It was the appellant's duty to furnish its employees with a way or appliance for obtaining merchandise stored on this top shelf,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunt v. Sherrill
... ... The question was submitted to the jury, ... and properly so, under this evidence. F. W. Woolworth Co ... v. Freeman, 193 Miss. 838, 11 So.2d 447 ... Lastly, ... Hunt contends that ... ...
-
Seymour v. Gulf Coast Buick, Inc., 42650
...said: '* * * even when the statements are conflicting it is a jury question to determine which, in fact, is true. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Freeman, 193 Miss. 838, 11 So.2d 447; Byrd v. Masonite Corp., 218 Miss. 731, 67 So.2d 724; Thompson v. Thomas, 219 Miss. 552, 69 So.2d 238; Posey v. Weath......
-
Meridian Hatcheries, Inc. v. Troutman
...appellant's general manager but these conflicts were for determination by a jury. As we said in the case of F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Freeman, 193 Miss. 838, 839, 11 So.2d 447, 450: 'This conflict in her testimony would not have justified the court below in refusing to permit the jury to consi......
-
Wells-Lamont Corp. v. Watkins
...and we think that the discretion of the court in this particular was not properly exercised.' In the case of F. W. Woolworth Company v. Freeman, 193 Miss. 838, 11 So.2d 447, this Court said: 'One other contention of the appellant is that the court below erred in permitting the appellee to t......