Pfeifers of Ark. v. Rorex

• Citation: 225 Ark. 840,286 S.W.2d 1,62 A.L.R.2d 1
• Decision Date: 23 January 1956
• Docket Number: No. 5-813,5-813
• Parties: , 62 A.L.R.2d 1 PFEIFERS OF ARKANSAS, Appellant, v. Mrs. Albert (Elsie) ROREX, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 1

286 S.W.2d 1

225 Ark. 840, 62 A.L.R.2d 1

PFEIFERS OF ARKANSAS, Appellant, v. Mrs. Albert (Elsie) ROREX, Appellee.

No. 5-813.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 23, 1956.

House, Moses & Holmes, Little Rock, for appellant.

Wood & Smith, Little Rock, for appellee.

SEAMSTER, Chief Justice.

The appellee, Mrs. Albert Rorex, brought this action again appellant, Pfeifers of Arkansas, to recover damages for physical injuries which she alleged she sustained as the result of a fall she suffered while a customer in appellant's department store in Little Rock, Arkansas, on October 25, 1954.

The negligence alleged in this case was the failure on the part of the appellant to exercise ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition in that appellant had knowledge of but carelessly and negligently failed to remove a slick substance from the floor of its store or warn its visitors and customers of the presence thereof. The appellee further contends that while in the exercise of due care and regard for her own safety, she slipped on this slick substance and fell to the floor suffering serious physical injury.

The appellant's answer was a general denial of the allegations of the complaint and a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the appellee. This cause was tried in the Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division, on May 16, 1955, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee, in the sum of $5,000.

For a reversal of the trial court's judgment, appellant lists the following three points: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the appellant. The finding of the jury that defendant was negligent was contrary to the evidence, and there was no negligence as a matter of law; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of witness C. V. Lugar concerning certain statements allegedly made by an employee of the appellant; and, (3) the damages awarded by the jury were grossly excessive and there was no substantial evidence to support the amount of the verdict.

The testimony of appellee disclosed that on the occasion of the injury she entered appellant's store for the purpose of purchasing merchandise. The purchased several articles and was walking down the aisle of appellant's store when her right foot came in contact with a slippery substance on the floor, she slipped and turned completely around and fell to the floor. The appellee contended that she remained on the floor for about ten or twelve minutes since the employees of appellant would not allow her to move from her position after the fall in fear that she might have been seriously injured. Appellee further testified that this fall caused severe pain in the region of her left hip whereby appellant sent her in an ambulance to the Arkansas Baptist Hospital and she remained in the hospital for a period of 41 days after the fall. A period of three weeks elapsed, after she was admitted to the hospital, before she was able to walk and then only by holding to the back of a wheelchair.

The appellee further testified that after her release from the hospital it became necessary that she remain in Little Rock for a period of ten days in order to secure further treatments. On her return home, she could only move about her home by holding to furniture and other objects. The appellee insists that the affected area was painful for a period of approximately seven months after the injury.

Dr. James W. Shuffield, a witness on behalf of appellant, testified that he examined the appellee on the date of the alleged injury and found her suffering from a bruised hip, strained muscles inside the right thigh and upper joints and muscular strain in the lower part of the back, with sensitivity of the bone utilized in sitting. Dr. Shuffield further testified that in his opinion, based solely upon objective findings, the appellee did not suffer any permanent disability by reason of the accident and could have been discharged from the hospital on or about November 8, 1954. The testimony revealed that subjectively the appellee's progress of recovery after the accident was very slow and the objective findings made by the doctor are those findings that can be revealed by X-ray or other visible means and are not by any means tantamount to a finding that appellee had completely recovered from the injury and had been restored to good health.

C. V. Lugar, a witness on behalf of appellee, testified that he was a customer in appellant's store on the day of the accident and saw the appellee slip and fall on some form of greasy substance on appellant's floor. Mr. Lugar further testified that immediately after this accident, he overheard an employee of appellant make a statement to the effect that the substance should have been removed from the floor before somebody slipped and fell. This statement was made approximately thirty seconds after the accident. At the time of the accident, Mr. Lugar was standing about ten feet in front of the spot or substance on which the appellee slipped and fell. Lugar further testified that he saw the woman who made this statement and presumed that she was an employee of appellant since she initially came out...