Kilgore v. Shepard Co.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6984.,6984. |
| Citation | 158 A. 720 |
| Parties | KILGORE v. SHEPARD CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Herbert L. Carpenter, Judge.
Action by Nina M. Kilgore against the Shepard Company. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was granted, and plaintiff brings exception.
Exception overruled, and case remitted for Judgment.
William H. McSoley, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Sherwood, Heltzen & Clifford and Sidney Clifford, all of Providence, for defendant.
Plaintiff brought this action on the case for negligence in the superior court to recover damages for personal injuries. At the close of the plaintiff's case, defendant rested and moved for a directed verdict. The trial justice granted the motion, and the case is before this court on plaintiff's exception to this ruling.
It is alleged in the declaration that defendant provided chairs at a table in its store for the convenience of its customers; that its duty was to warn customers of any defects in the chairs which were not apparent; that defendant, unmindful of its duty, negligently permitted a defective chair to remain at said table, and neglected to warn plaintiff of a defect in the chair.
The testimony produced to prove these allegations was that plaintiff entered the store for the purpose of purchasing some textile paints which were displayed on a table; that several persons were around the table waiting to be served; that the saleswoman was not there; that plaintiff moved a chair about six inches from the table, and that as she sat on the chair it gave way and she fell to the floor. The chair was described as being about two feet high and having a short back. The legs of the chair were outside of a wooden ring which was about ten inches from the floor, and fastened to the legs with screws. An examination of the chair immediately after plaintiff fell showed that the top of the left front leg was out of its socket in the seat, and that the leg was broken about two inches from the floor. A witness testified that it looked as if the glue had dried and had allowed the leg to get out of the socket. The other legs were firmly glued into the seat of the chair.
The trial justice directed a verdict because there was no evidence to support an inference that the defendant was negligent in any way, or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect in the chair.
Plaintiff claims that the jury might reasonably have inferred from the evidence that the top of the leg was out of its socket and that, when plaintiff sat on the chair, the top of the leg slanted outwards and the lower part inwards, and that it broke thereby throwing plaintiff to the floor; that the leg might have been loose for some time; and that defendant's servants could have discovered the defect by ordinary inspection. The claim is not supported by any evidence. It is well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce, 1937
... ... loquitur, as stated above, to facts generally analogous to ... those here presented, in Kilgore v. Shepard Co., 52 ... R.I. 151, 158 A. 720, it appeared that the plaintiff, a ... woman, while waiting to purchase some merchandise in ... ...
-
Carroll v. May Department Stores Co.
... ... 562; Kelly v. Laclede Real ... Estate & Investment Co., 348 Mo. 407, 155 S.W.2d 90; ... Perry v. Stein, 63 S.W.2d 296; Kilgore v ... Shepard Company, 52 R. I. 151, 158 A. 720; Herries ... v. Bond Stores, 84 S.W.2d 153; Keady v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co., 15 S.W.2d 379; ... ...
-
Wilkinson v. Vesey
...came too late in the proceedings. We disagree. In referring to the quality of innocuousness, the trial justice cited Kilgore v. Shepard Co., 52 R.I. 151, 158 A. 720 (1932) and went on to say that an x-ray therapy machine could not be so classified because its very function was to generate a......
-
Herries v. Bond Stores
...from the table . . . and was voluntarily used by plaintiff without any suggestion on the part of the saleswoman." We do not regard the Kilgore case, supra, as being in with the general current of authority on this subject. The facts are quite similar to the facts in the instant case, with t......