Glennon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
| Citation | 143 A.2d 282,87 R.I. 454 |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 9862,9862 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
| Parties | Matthew W. GLENNON v. The GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY. Ex. |
Joseph A. Kelly, James P. Quirk, Providence, for plaintiff.
Boss, Conlan, Keenan, Bulman & Rice, James C. Bulman, Providence, for defendant.
This action of trespass on the case for negligence was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he fell over a low wall as he left the defendant's store. The case was tried to a jury in the superior court and at the conclusion thereof they returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,000. Later, on the defendant's motion for a new trial, this was reduced to $9,000. The plaintiff duly filed a remittitur. The case is before us on the defendant's exceptions to certain evidentiary rulings of the trial justice, and to the denial of the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for an unconditional new trial.
There is no substantial dispute concerning the material facts in the case. It appears that on December 31, 1955 plaintiff was in defendant's store for the purpose of purchasing groceries. Upon completion of his shopping plaintiff, carrying two bags of groceries, went out through the main entrance located at the front of the store in order to go to his automobile.
It further appears that in front of the store there is a sidewalk which, paralleling the front of the building, leads to a parking area. The defendant had planted certain shrubs along the front of its building and had built a low cement wall or curb between the sidewalk mentioned above and the soft area in which the shrubs were planted. This wall was about 3 3/4 inches high and 4 inches wide and paralleled the front wall of the store at a distance of 29 inches. At the front entrance this wall turned at right angles and extended into the wall of the store.
Upon leaving the store the plaintiff went through the entrance, which is in the style of a patio, took six or eight steps across and out of the patio, and turned left to proceed along the sidewalk to his parked automobile. When he had taken but a few steps in that direction his left foot came into contact with the wall above described and he fell to the ground. It is not disputed that he was unfamiliar with defendant's premises.
The defendant took exception to the denial by the trial justice of its motion for a directed verdict. One of the grounds for this motion was that there was no evidence in the record from which the jury could find negligence on the part of defendant. We are unable to agree with this contention. At the time the motion for a direction was made there was testimony in the record by an architect, who appeared in behalf of plaintiff, that the location of the wall created a hazardous condition at the entrance to the store. Under our well-established rule that on a motion for a direction every inference favorable to the plaintiff must be drawn from evidence in the record, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion. The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was clearly for the jury. This exception is overruled.
However, defendant took exceptions, which it presses here, to the rulings of the trial justice in admitting into evidence the testimony of the architect. The portion of the testimony to which objection was made related to his opinion that the location of the wall and defendant's failure to establish certain safeguards about the wall created a hazardous condition at the store exit. He testified as follows: He further testified over objection: 'The wall could be made safer by either putting a rail of decent height * * * or by cutting it back at a sharp angle * * *.'
It is our opinion that it was error to admit such testimony into evidence over objection. This court has long recognized the proposition that where circumstances can be fully and adequately described to a jury "and are such that their bearing on the issue can be estimated by all men, without special knowledge or training, opinions of witnesses,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maloney
...different from that in a civil appeal. In support thereof, the state referred our attention to Glennon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 87 R.I. 454, 143 A.2d 282 (1958). That case was a civil action for negligence. Over the defendant's objection, evidence was admitted which was probativ......
-
State v. Kozukonis
...question of whether a highway was safe and convenient for travelers with teams, carts, and carriages, and in Glennon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 87 R.I. 454, 143 A.2d 282, as to whether a wall was a hazard because of its location and lack of safeguards. In each of those cases the j......
-
Morales v. Town of Johnston
...and experience that the clothespin had been on the steps for some substantial period of time"); Glennon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 87 R.I. 454, 457, 143 A.2d 282, 284 (1958) (holding it was error to permit an architect to testify to the effect that a low wall outside the exit of d......
-
R.I. Res. Recovery Corp. v. Restivo Monacelli LLP.
...as the expert." Barenbaum v. Richardson , 114 R.I. 87, 90–91, 328 A.2d 731, 733 (1974) ; see also Glennon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , 87 R.I. 454, 457, 143 A.2d 282, 284 (1958) ; Fontaine v. Follett , 51 R.I. 413, 416–17, 155 A. 363, 364 (1931).We have more recently articulated th......