Kanner v. Best Markets, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1958 |
| Citation | 147 A.2d 172,188 Pa.Super. 366 |
| Parties | David KANNER v. BEST MARKETS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Rickard W. Hopkins, White, Williams & Scott Philadelphia, for appellant.
Irving J. Katz, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, ERVIN and WATKINS JJ.
David Kanner brought an action in trespass to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by him when he bumped his face against a clear glass panel as he attempted to enter the Best Markets, Inc., food market in Philadelphia. Verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant filed motions for new trial and for judgment n. o v. The lower court refused these motions, hence this appeal.
Verdict having been rendered for plaintiff, we are required to consider the testimony in the light most advantageous to appellee, and to resolve in his favor all doubts and conflicts therein. Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co 1951, 368 Pa. 507, 84 A.2d 200.
On the night of September 14, 1955, at approximately 8:20 p. m., plaintiff, who was accompanied by his wife, parked his automobile on the parking lot of defendant's food market preparatory to making purchases. The lights were lit on the parking lot at the time plaintiff parked his car. It was the first time that plaintiff had ever been to the store. He proceeded to the nearest set of doors, which he presumed to be a combination entrance and exit, but which, in fact, was only an exit. There was a canopy over the doors but the lights were not lit on the canopy, nor immediately inside door, although they were lit inside the store proper.
As plaintiff and his wife approached the doors in question, they saw the following: To their left were two closed doors with the word 'Out' printed upon each. These two doors were closed and the word 'Out' on each door could be seen by plaintiff and his wife. To te right of these two doors was another door which was also intended as a means of egress, with the word 'Out' printed on it. This door was open at the time, however, preventing plaintiff and his wife from seeing the printing thereon. Furthermore, this third door was blocked by a line of shopping carts and by a boy who was wheeling carts into the store through it. To the right of the third door there was what appeared to be a narrow opening, which plaintiff and his wife took to be another means of entrance.
Plaintiff proceeded to enter the store through what he thought was the right-hand entrance, which, as the situation appeared to him, was the only entrance then available to him. What he thought was an opening, however, was in fact a solid glass panel 18 inches wide, with no lettering on it, and with a chrome strip six inches from the floor. Plaintiff collided with the glass panel and fractured his nose.
Appellant contends that plaintiff failed to show that defendant had a dual or constructive notice that the lights were out. With this we cannot agree. The lights in question cover such an area, and are so located in the store, and considering the number of people who use the exit as a means of leaving the store and admittedly also as a means of entrance, considering all the circumstances, a jury is justified in finding that the condition existed for a sufficient time to amount to constructive notice. Stais v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 1954, 174 Pa.Super. 498, 102 A.2d 204.
Appellant also contends that a person in control of all his faculties who walks into a glass panel which he could have seen had he looked, is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. This, however, is not our case. Plaintiff did not trip or slip on an object at floor level, and as testified, was not looking for pennies but...
To continue reading
Request your trial