Fox v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co
| Decision Date | 11 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 685.,685. |
| Citation | 209 N.C. 115,182 S.E. 662 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | FOX. v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; McElroy, Judge.
Action by Mrs. J. A. Fox against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. From a judgment of dismissal as of nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant.
On the morning of the 26th day of June, 1934, between 10 o'clock and noon, the plaintiff went to the store of the defendant, on West Market street in the city of Greensboro, for the purpose of making a purchase of meat, and when she had gotten inside, two or three feet past the entrance, she stepped on a beet which was lying on the floor between the bins, where vegetables were placed for display and sale, which caused her to slip and injure her ankle and back.
There was no evidence tending to show how the beet got on the floor of the aisle between the vegetable bins, or how long it had been there before the plaintiff stepped on it and slipped.
At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the action was dismissed byjudgment as of nonsuit, and the plaintiff appealed.
Younce & Younce, of Greensboro, for appellant.
Sapp & Sapp, of Greensboro, for appellee.
Since there is no evidence of how the beet got upon the floor of the aisle, or of how long the beet had been upon the floor before the plaintiff stepped on it, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The' defendant is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter its store for the purpose of making purchases, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Before the plaintiff can recover, she must, by evidence, establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co., 198 N.C. 559, 152 S.E. 625; Cooke v. Tea Co., 204 N.C. 495, 168 S.E. 679, and this she has failed to do.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Dixie Home Stores
...with notice thereof. In our opinion the evidence falls short of making this showing. In the case of Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662, 663, it appears that the plaintiff went to the store of the defendant for the purpose of making a purchase, and when s......
-
Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
... ... oiled floor. Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., supra; Pratt v ... Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 218 N.C. 732, 12 S.E.2d ... 242; Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific ... ...
-
Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers
...removing it or warning plaintiff of its presence prior to the accident. Pratt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra; Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra; Cooke v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra. fact that the surface of the terrazzo flooring was smooth and sloped do......
-
Waters v. Harris
...Examples of this class of cases are: Pratt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 218 N.C. 732, 12 S.E.2d 242; Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662; Cooke v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 204 N.C. 495, 168 S.E. Appellees contend that the instant case is of t......