Mullinax v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 16628

• Decision Date: 19 May 1952
• Docket Number: No. 16628,16628
• Citation: 70 S.E.2d 911,221 S.C. 433
• Parties: MULLINAX v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 911

70 S.E.2d 911

221 S.C. 433

MULLINAX v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.

No. 16628.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 19, 1952.

Price & Poag, Greenville, for appellant.

Richard J. Foster, John Bolt Culbertson, Greenville, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

Respondent while shopping for groceries in appellant's place of business in Greenville, South Carolina, on April 1, 1950, suffered a fall by having her feet slip from under her, as a result of which she was awarded the sum of $6,000 by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County. Timely motions were made for nonsuit, directed verdict, new trial and judgment Non Obstante Veredicto, all of which were refused.

The principal question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of appellant to require submission of the case to the jury.

A short while prior to the time the respondent received her injuries, a third party while shopping in a manner similar to that of respondent, accidently dropped and broke a pint bottle of Wesson Oil. Appellant's employees were aware of the incident at the time and took steps to correct the hazard presented by the oil being upon the floor which was described as a tile especially suited for this type of business. Mops, both wet and dry, were used and since the area affected was at the entrance to one of five checking out counters, this counter was closed for the time being. A short while thereafter, the exact time being in dispute, this area was pronounced safe and customers invited to use this alley or counter for the purpose of checking and paying for their groceries. Some few persons passed over this area immediately prior to the respondent, but respondent upon reaching the area where the oil had been spilled, slipped and was thrown violently to the floor receiving such injury to the lower spine that surgery was necessary. Appellant contends that the floor having been mopped was in an entirely dry and safe condition. While there is testimony on the part of the respondent that the oil was colorless and on the grey tile was difficult to see, that the area had not yet dried but that there was a substance on the floor which could be felt when the hand was placed thereon and that it appeared to be wet.

'The principles governing liability in a case of this kind are very simple and well settled. One who operates a mercantile establishment is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter his store but he does owe them the duty of exercising ordinary care to keep the aisles, passageways, and such other parts of the premises as are ordinarily used by customers in transacting business in a reasonably safe condition.' Bagwell v. McClellan Stores Co., 216 S.C. 207, 57 S.E.2d 257, 260.

It is well settled that in passing upon a motion for a nonsuit, testimony and all inferences from it must be taken most strongly against the defendant and if there be any testimony tending to prove any one or more of the specifications of negligence, the motion should be refused. Sturdyvin v. Atlantic & C. A. L. Railroad Company, 98 S.C. 125, 82 S.E. 275; Montgomery v. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 186 S.C. 167, 195 S.E. 247. The testimony must be considered in the light most favorable for plaintiff. Jones v. American Fidelity & Casualty Company, 210 S.C. 470, 43 S.E.2d 355....