Perales v. Braslau's Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 754,754 |
| Citation | 493 S.W.2d 638 |
| Parties | Viola PERALES Appellant, v. BRASLAU'S FURNITURE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Lee Arnett, Brownsville, John L. Johnson, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Allison, Maddin, White & Brin, Harry F. Maddin, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
This is a slip and fall case. Viola Perales sued Braslau's Furniture Company for personal injuries sustained when she fell in defendant's store. Following a jury trial, judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.
Plaintiff, while in defendant's store, allegedly slipped and fell at a slippery place on the floor. Her left thigh was severely injured by the fall. Among other allegations, plaintiff alleged that defendant maintained the floor in a slippery condition that rendered it unsafe for plaintiff to walk; that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to keep the floor in a safe condition which was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question; that such failure consisted of waxing the vinyl floor which should not have been waxed, failing to properly strip the old wax from the floor before applying new wax, using a wax without sufficient skid retardant additives, and applying an excessive amount of wax when the floor was waxed.
The trial court, over defendant's objections, submitted Special Issues Nos. 1 and 2, which issues and the jury's answers read as follows:
'SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Viola Perales fell on the occasion in question because she encountered a slippery place on the floor?
Answer 'We do' or 'We do not'.
Answer: We do.
If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 'We do', then answer Special Issue No. 2, otherwise you need not answer the same.
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Braslau Furniture Company failed to use the degree of care that a reasonably prudent furniture company would have used under the same or similar circumstances in the manner in which the floor was waxed at the place where Viola Perales fell?
Answer 'We do' or 'We do not'.
Answer: We do not.'
A proximate cause issue was conditionally submitted upon a 'we do' answer to Special Issue No. 2, and, consequently, was not answered by the jury. Plaintiff did not object to the submission of Special Issues 1 and 2.
Plaintiff, by points 1, 2, 3 and 4, complains of the failure of the court to submit her requested Special Issues A, B, C and D. Such issues inquired: (A) whether in the exercise of ordinary care defendant should not have applied wax to the floor surface in question; (B) whether defendant applied wax to the floor in a manner contrary to the instructions of the manufacturers of the wax; (C) whether there was an excessive amount of wax on the floor at the place where plaintiff fell; and (D) whether defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to strip the old wax from the floor before applying new wax?
Plaintiff testified that she was familiar with defendant's premises, that the floor was not slippery before she got to the place where she fell, and that she did not know what, if anything, was on the floor that caused her to slip and fall. She further stated that she made no examination of the floor at the place where she fell, and that all she really knew was that the floor was slippery where she fell.
Various employees of defendant testified that they were not aware that the floor was slippery where plaintiff fell, that they saw nothing on the floor that could have caused the fall, and that when plaintiff fell her legs seemed to give way and she did not slip. The floor was covered with a vinyl sheet material and was maintained by a janitor in the employ of the defendant. It was waxed at least every four months. The janitor testified that before he applied wax to the floor he scrubbed the floor with soap and water. After rinsing and drying, he applied 'Peak' liquid wax with a sixteen ounce string mop in a back and forth motion. After the first coat dried, a second coat was applied using slightly less wax. He would use about three-fourths of a gallon of wax on the floor. He would then buff the surface. Then, the floor would be dust mopped. He did not use a commercial stripper on the floor to remove old layers of wax prior to applying the new wax.
Plaintiff's expert witness testified that failure to remove old wax in a proper manner would cause excessive accumulation of wax on the floor which could cause the floor to become slippery. He also said that he would use only one coat of the 'Peak' wax, that three-fourths of a gallon of wax was too much for the floor, that if the floor showed buffing marks too much wax had been used, and that he would use a commercial stripper to remove all old wax prior to applying a new application. However, he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C & C Partners v. Sun Exploration and Production Co.
...Clark v. McFerrin, 760 S.W.2d 822, 825-26 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied); Perales v. Braslau's Furniture Co., 493 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See generally W. DORSANEO, 5 TEXAS LITIGATION GUIDE § 122.03 (1989). Since the exploration ......
-
Neuhaus v. Kain
... ... Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Pepper, 134 Tex. 360, 135 S.W.2d 79 (1940); Perales v. Braslau's Furniture Company, 493 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd n. r ... ...
-
Clark v. McFerrin
... ... Kain, 557 S.W.2d 125, 135 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Perales v. Braslau's Furniture Co., 493 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd ... ...
-
Harker v. Coastal Engineering, Inc.
... ... Constructors, Inc., 586 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Perales v. Braslau's Furniture Company, 493 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd ... ...