Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems
Decision Date | 27 June 1957 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 903 |
Citation | 96 So.2d 741,266 Ala. 415 |
Parties | The GREAT ATLANTIC and PACIFIC TEA COMPANY v. Gertrude WEEMS. The GREAT ATLANTIC and PACIFIC TEA COMPANY v. Marvin WEEMS. , 903-A. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Drennen, Loeb & Drennen, Birmingham, for appellant.
Taylor, Higgins, Windham & Perdue, Birmingham, for appellees.
Gertrude Weems, plaintiff below and appellee in 6 Div. 903, brought suit in the circuit court of Jefferson County against The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, appellant, and Carl Burton, the store manager for said company, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by said plaintiff when she slipped and fell to the floor of appellant's grocery store located in the city of Jasper, Walker County, Alabama. Appellant's negligence was alleged to be its failure 'to maintain said store at the place where plaintiff slipped and fell in a reasonably safe condition for the use of customers in said store.' It appears from the evidence offered by plaintiff that her injuries resulted from slipping on lettuce leaves which were on the floor of the store just outside of one of the checkingout aisles towards the front entrance to the store.
In 6 Div. 903-A, Marvin Weems, appellee, as the husband of Gertrude Weems, brought suit against the same defendants in the same court to recover damages for loss of services of his wife and expenditures made by him in connection with her said injuries; it being alleged that he 'was put to great trouble, annoyance, inconvenience, loss of time and great expense in and about his efforts to heal and cure the said wounds and injuries of his said wife', with the further allegation that 'all of the said injuries and damages to his said wife, with resultant damage to plaintiff were caused as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendants in this: Defendants negligently failed to maintain said store at the place where plaintiff's said wife slipped and fell in a reasonably safe condition for the use of customers in said store.'
Both cases were tried together in the circuit court. Separate verdicts were rendered by the jury against The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company in favor of Gertrude Weems for $1,500 and in favor of Marvin Weems for $500. Verdicts were rendered in favor of the defendant Carl Burton. These appeals are from the judgments rendered on the verdicts in favor of the Weems'. By agreement of the parties both cases were submitted here on one record.
Although questions are raised with respect to rulings of the trial court on objections to evidence, argument of counsel, the refusal to give certain requested written charges, and the excessiveness of the verdicts, the principal question presented is whether the evidence sufficiently shows a failure of appellant to maintain its store in a reasonably safe condition for the use of its customers. It is appellant's insistence that there is no evidence to support a finding that the lettuce leaves on which Mrs. Weems claims to have slipped had been on the floor of the store a sufficient length of time to put appellant on notice of that condition and that without such evidence there can be no recovery. Although appellant's witnesses denied the existence of the condition of the floor as charged by Mrs. Weems there is ample testimony given by witnesses for appellees showing that at the time Mrs. Weems fell there was at least one 'old, dirty, mashed lettuce leaf' on the floor. On the issue of the presence of the lettuce on the floor the evidence is in direct conflict. In this situation the question was one for the jury. And it is to be noted that the trial judge denied the motion for a new trial, thus refusing to disturb the verdict of the jury. It seems to us that what was said in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 99, 69 So.2d 274, 276, is of controlling influence here, to-wit:
[Emphasis supplied.]
We take note of the argument made on behalf of appellant that a different duty should be declared to be owed by the operator of a so-called 'self-service store' from that owed by the operator of a store where the sales are handled by employees of the operator. We see no occasion to discuss that argument in this case for the reason that the evidence cleary establishes that the lettuce leaves on which Mrs. Weems claims to have slipped were not on the floor in that part of the store where customers would serve themselves. As already noted the evidence places the lettuce leaves between the checking counters and the front entrance to the store.
Although the evidence does not show that Mrs. Weems suffered any permanent injury we find no basis for saying that the verdict in her favor was excessive. The assessment of damages in any case necessarily must be left, in the first instance, largely to the discretion of the jury and, on motion for new trial, to the discretion of the trial judge. In these cases the trial judge refused to disturb the verdicts. As said in Montgomery City Lines v. Davis, 261 Ala. 491, 494, 495, 74 So.2d 923, 925:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foodtown Stores, Inc. v. Patterson
...Tea Co. v. Bennett, 267 Ala. 538, 103 So.2d 177; S. H. Kress & Co. v. Thompson, 267 Ala. 566, 103 So.2d 171; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 99, 69 So.2d 274; Kittrell v. Alabama Power Co., ......
-
Ex parte Travis, WINN-DIXIE
...on the alert for such hazards." Bennett at 540, 103 So.2d 177. The trial court in the three "A&P" cases (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741 (1957); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 69 So.2d 274 (1953); and Great Atlantic & Pacific ......
-
Smith v. Mr. D's, Inc.
...which may, under some circumstances, be indicative of the length of time it was present on the floor. (See Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741; Morris v. King Cole Stores, Inc., 132 Conn. 489, 45 A.2d Since there was no evidence of actual or constructiv......
-
S.H. Kress & Co. v. Thompson
...the case presented a jury question, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 69 So.2d 274; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Bennett, Ala., 103 So.2d In the Popkins case the plaintiff slipped and fell ......