Jimenez v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7216,7216 |
| Citation | 382 P.2d 181,1963 NMSC 102,72 N.M. 184 |
| Parties | Margaret Armijo JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOP RITE FOODS, INC., d/b/a Piggly Wiggly Stores, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Lorenzo A. Chavez, Arturo G. Ortega, Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Shaffer & Butt, Albuquerque, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant sought damages because of injuries suffered by her when she fell in the produce department of one of defendant's stores as a result of slipping on a grape which was on the floor.
Trial of the case before a jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment was entered thereon. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was sustained. In the order granting judgment n. o. v. the court found 'that the court erroneously admitted testimony into evidence of a prior fall at defendant's store; that under any circumstances there was insufficient evidence of defendant's negligence to raise a question of fact for the jury * * *.'
It is only necessary for us to consider whether the proof presented was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to defendant's negligence. In so doing, we are bound to view the evidence in its best light to support the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff. Ortega v. Taxas-New Mexico Ry. Co., 70 N.M. 58, 370 P.2d 201; Carpenter v. Yates, 58 N.M. 513, 273 P.2d 373.
Briefly stated, the pertinent evidence established that produce was displayed in racks about four feet high in such a manner that it is impossible to prevent some from occasionally falling to the floor. Defendant knew that when customers handled the produce some of it, such as trimmings from lettuce, would fall on the floor. In order to prevent accidents that might be caused by material which fell to the floor maintenance personnel were employed, whose duty it was to keep the floor clean. The floor had been swept about a half hour before plaintiff fell and, in addition, within five minutes of her fall an employee in the produce department passed through, picking up 'trimmings' which had fallen to the floor.
Under the circumstances, even assuming without deciding that evidence of the fall, four and one-half months previously, was admissible, we agree with the trial court 'that under any circumstances there was insufficient evidence of defendant's negligence.' We consider this to be a clearer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Jeffries-Eaves, Inc.
...in the light most favorable to the verdict. Minor v. Homestake-Sapin Partners Mine, 69 N.M. 72, 364 P.2d 134; Jimenez v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 72 N.M. 184, 382 P.2d 181; Brown v. Pot Creek Logging & Lumber Company, 73 N.M. 178, 386 P.2d Although the statute requires defendants' driver to p......
-
Shaver v. Bell
...puddle of oil prior to stepping in it. Neither can we say as a matter of law that he saw or should have seen it. Jimenez v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 72 N.M. 184, 382 P.2d 181, and Lewis v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc., 72 N.M. 402, 384 P.2d 470, are cases where plaintiffs fell in the produce ......
-
Moultrey v. Great A & P Tea Co.
... ... Mountain ... Laurel Racing, Inc., 240 Pa.Super. 248, 367 A.2d 1106 (1976), ... reasons ... Store, 531 P.2d 360 (Utah 1973) with Jimenez v. Shop Rite ... Foods, Inc., 72 N.M. 184, 382 P.2d 181 ... ...
-
Crockett v. Encino Gardens Care Center, Inc.
...P.2d 282 (1958); Williamson v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 80 N.M. 591, 458 P.2d 843 (Ct.App.1969); Jimenez v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 72 N.M. 184, 382 P.2d 181 (1963); Lewis v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc., 72 N.M. 402, 384 P.2d 470 (1963); Barakos v. Sponduris, 64 N.M. 125, 325 P.......