Pavlik v. Albertson's Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Citation | 454 P.2d 852,253 Or. 370 |
| Parties | Winnette PAVLIK, Respondent, v. ALBERTSON'S INC., a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Edward H. Warren, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Hershiser & Mitchell, Portland.
Russell M. Allen, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were White, Sutherland & Gilbertson, Portland.
Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN, and HAMMOND, * JJ.
Plaintiff secured a judgment for damages for injuries suffered when she slipped and fell on a lettuce leaf in defendant's market. Defendant appealed.
Two specifications of defendant's alleged negligence were submitted to the jury for its consideration. The first was that defendant was negligent in placing the lettuce leaf on he floor. The second was that the lettuce leaf had remained on the floor for such a length of time that defendant was negligent in not having discovered and removed it. Defendant claims the court erred in submitting either or both of the specifications to the jury because there was no evidence to sustain them. This claim necessitates a minute examination of the evidence.
Defendant's market had two customer entrances facing the same street; one at each end of the building. Plaintiff went in the right-hand entrance as she faced the building. She had numerous empty bottles in her car for return to the market. Just inside the entrance she found an empty grocery cart which was situated as if someone had returned it by shoving it through the door. She took the cart, returned to her automobile and loaded it with bottles. Upon returning through the same door with the loaded cart she was faced with a magazine rack. To her immediate left, along the front of the store, there was a corridor running the length of the building to the door at the far end. Immediately alongside this corridor and between the two entrances was a bank of six checkout stations numbered 1 to 6. No. 1 station was the closest to her on the left as she entered. Behind the checkout stations was the merchandise for sale.
The only checkout station in operation was No. 3. Upon entering the store with the loaded cart plaintiff did not go to the left down the corridor at the front of the store to this station. Instead, plaintiff went to the right around the end of and then behind the magazine rack where she met an employee with whom she stopped and talked for four or five minutes. At that time another employee came along and said he could check in the bottles for her. He ran the cart into checkout station No. 1 from the inside of the store as a customer would who was passing out with groceries. Plaintiff followed the cart and was paid for the bottles. She passed through the checkout station and turned left down the corridor at the front of the building towards her door of entrance. As she went to leave the checkout station she saw an employee of defendant whom she knew and who was returning from the parking lot after packing out groceries for a customer. She was preparing to speak to him when she stepped on the lettuce leaf and fell. The employee saw the leaf just as she stepped on it but not in time to warn her. The leaf lay on the floor in the corridor at the front of the building just opposite checkout station No. 1 and about 12 feet from the front door through which she had entered. After her fall plaintiff discovered the leaf and described it as 'wellmarked.'
Lettuce was kept on the produce counter which extended along the wall at the far end of the building from that where plaintiff entered. Lettuce was not pre-wrapped but bags were provided at the produce counter for customers in case they wished to use them. Some customers used the bags and others did not. If the customer did not bag his lettuce at the produce counter and carried it loose in his cart to the checkout station, the checker would wrap it for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peiffer v. Hoyt
...means that a party could use to effectuate that requirement. The court explained: "To avail oneself of the Pavlik [v. Albertson's, Inc., 253 Or. 370, 454 P.2d 852 (1969)] rule, a party must have taken some action at trial to remove the unsupported allegation from the jury's purview. The rat......
-
Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp.
...this court has held that a new trial must be granted. That is, the court has followed a "we can't tell" rule. In Pavlik v. Albertson's, Inc., 253 Or. 370, 454 P.2d 852 (1969), for example, one of two allegations of negligence submitted to the jury was unsupported by the evidence. A general ......
-
Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
...the jury had based its verdict on the invalid specification. One such case, upon which Whinston relied, was Pavlik v. Albertson's, Inc., 253 Or. 370, 454 P.2d 852 (1969). However, in Pavlik, this court merely stated that conclusion in a single sentence, providing no analysis or justificatio......
-
Diller v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...substance was on the floor, there is no basis for a finding of negligence. See Weiskopf v. Safeway Stores,supra; Pavlik v. Albertson's, Inc., 253 Or. 370, 454 P.2d 852 (1969); George v. Erickson's Supermarket, Inc., 236 Or. 64, 386 P.2d 801 Plaintiff also relies on the decision of this cour......