Hall v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America
| Citation | 115 Conn. 698,160 A. 302 |
| Parties | HALL v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. OF AMERICA. |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1932 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.
Action by Lydia B. Hall against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company of America, for injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The case was tried to the jury, verdict was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Retail grocer's negligence in not having premises used by customers reasonably safe, where customer slipped on oil on floor, held for jury.
John T. Dwyer and Robert N. Wolfe, Jr., both of South Norwalk, for appellant.
Leslie N. Davis, of Norwalk, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
The only ground of appeal presented in this case is the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence was conflicting, but from it the jury might reasonably have concluded that the plaintiff, at about 4:30 in the afternoon of October 22, 1930, went into the defendant's retail grocery store at Norwalk for the purpose of purchasing groceries, and that as she was walking up to the counter, and in the exercise of reasonable care, she stepped on an accumulation of oil on the floor, and was thereby caused to slip and fall, and received injuries; that the oil had been placed on the floor by the defendant, and had existed thereon for such a period of time that the defendant, or its employees, knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of its existence, and that a dangerous condition was created thereby. If the jury found these to be the facts, it was justified in concluding that the defendant failed in its duty of exercising reasonable care to have such part of its premises as was open to the use of its customers reasonably safe. Greenley v. Miller's, Incorporated, 111 Conn. 584, 588, 150 A. 500; Geoghegan v. Fox & Co., Inc., 104 Conn. 129, 135, 132 A. 408; Ward v. Avery, 113 Conn. 394, 396, 155 A. 502.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary
......v. Saxton, 177 N.E. 219;. Parker v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 161 S.E. 209;. H. F. Hohlt v. Routt, 48 ... Grocery Co. v. Monroe, 237 Ky. 60, 34 S.W.2d 929;. Hall v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 115 Conn. 698, 160 A. 302; ... McAllister Co., 241 Ill.App. 502; Texas Pacific Coal. & Oil Co. v. Grabner, 10 S.W.2d 441; McFarlane v. ......
-
Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
......Alaska Casteneau Mining Co. (C. C. A.) 245 F. 853; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Logan (C. C. A. Texas 1930) ... California court in Neil v. Bank of America National. Trust & Savings Association, Cal. App., 104 ...Jewelry Co., Inc., 119 Conn. 332, 334, 176 A. 405; Hall v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 115. Conn. 698, 160 ......
-
Achter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
......S. H. Kress & Co. (N. C.), 152 S.E. 625; Hall v. Great A. & P. Tea. Co., 115 Conn. 698, 160 A. 302; ......
-
Achter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...S.E. 209: Brown v. Holzwasser. Inc. (Calif. App.), 291 Pac. 661; Bowden v. S.H. Kress & Co. (N.C.), 152 S.E. 625; Hall v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 115 Conn. 698, 160 Atl. 302; Ward v. Avery (Conn.), 155 Atl. 502; McNeil v. Wm. G. Brown & Co. (C.C.A.), 22 Fed. (2d 675; Newell v. K. & D. Je......