Kittrell v. Alabama Power Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 697 |
| Citation | 258 Ala. 381,63 So.2d 363 |
| Parties | KITTRELL v. ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Albert L. Patterson, Phenix City, for appellant.
Smith & Smith, Phenix City, and Martin, Turner, Blakey, & Bouldin and Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee.
Mrs. Willie Mae Kittrell brought this suit against Alabama Power Company to recover damages for personal injuries which she alleged she sustained as a result of a fall which occurred when she was in defendant's place of business in Phenix City, where she had gone to pay a bill.
The suit is based on the alleged negligence of the defendant in its failure to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to walk in its place of business. The defendant pleaded the general issue in short by consent in the usual form. No witnesses were called by defendant. Upon the completion of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court gave at the request of defendant the general affirmative charge with hypothesis. There was verdict for defendant; judgment was in accord with the verdict. A motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and grant to plaintiff a new trial was overruled. Thereupon plaintiff appealed to this court.
Regardless of what the rule may be elsewhere, the applicable legal principles have been settled in this state.
The duty of defendant was to use ordinary or reasonable care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. It was not an insurer of the safety of its guests or invitees. The principle of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Ney, 239 Ala. 233, 194 So. 667; Ten Ball Novelty & Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 255 Ala. 418, 51 So.2d 690; Britling Cafeteria Co. v. Naylor, 254 Ala. 84, 47 So.2d 187, and cases cited.
Defendant is required to exercise reasonable care before its invitee comes to his premises to have the premises reasonably free from danger to the invitee when he arrives and to so keep the premises while the invitee is on the premises where he may be expected or was invited to go. Britling Cafeteria Co. v. Naylor, supra.
The claim here is that there was neglect of duty on the part of defendant in that the floor of its premises was 'awfully slick' and in failing to keep the floor free from dangerous substances. Such negligence would be either in causing such conditions or, after discovering them, in not exercising due care to remove them or in not exercising due care to discover such conditions before the accident. Britling Cafeteria Co. v. Naylor, supra.
The only evidence which tends to show the cause of plaintiff's fall is her own testimony. She testified that the floor was 'awfully slick' in response to a leading question. The building was new and had been occupied by defendant only a short period of time. The floor was tile with no covering. As to the claimed dangerous substance on the floor, the plaintiff's testimony does no more than show that on the floor at the place where she fell were 'pecan hulls' or sand or gravel or dirt.
There is no evidence to show that an employee of defendant knew the floor was slick or had placed any substance on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foodtown Stores, Inc. v. Patterson
...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., 258 Ala. 381, 63 So.2d 363; Ten Ball Novelty & Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 255 Ala. 418, 51 So.2d 690; Britling Cafeteria Co. v. Naylor,254 Ala. 84, 47 So......
-
Southern Minerals Co. v. Barrett
...defendant, as invitor, to plaintiff, as its invitee, has been stated in a number of this court's decisions. See: Kittrell v. Alabama Power Co., 258 Ala. 381, 383, 63 So.2d 363; First National Bank of Mobile v. Ambrose, 270 Ala. 371, 373--374, 119 So.2d 18; Lamson & Sessions Bolt Co. v. McCa......
-
Raney v. Roger Downs Ins. Agency
...mere licensees or trespassers. See, First National Bank of Mobile v. Ambrose, 270 Ala. 371, 119 So.2d 18 (1960); Kittrell v. Alabama Power Co., 258 Ala. 381, 63 So.2d 363 (1953); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Keltner, 29 Ala.App. 5, 191 So. 633, cert. den., 238 Ala. 462, 191 So. 640 T......
-
Evans v. Tanner
...is on the premises where he may be expected or was invited to go. Britling Cafeteria Co. v. Naylor, supra.' Kittrell v. Alabama Power Co., 258 Ala. 381, 383, 63 So.2d 363, 364. See also: First National Bank of Mobile v. Ambrose, 270 Ala. 371, 119 So.2d 18. We are of opinion that it was for ......