Reed v. L. Hammel Dry Goods Co., 1 Div. 424

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: BOULDIN, J.
• Citation: 111 So. 237,215 Ala. 494
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 424
• Decision Date: 20 January 1927
• Parties: REED v. L. HAMMEL DRY GOODS CO.

111 So. 237

215 Ala. 494

REED
v.
L. HAMMEL DRY GOODS CO.

1 Div. 424

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 20, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, Judge.

Action for damages by Susie Reed against L. Hammel Dry Goods Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. [111 So. 238]

Gordon & Edington, of Mobile, for appellant.

Smiths, Young & Johnston, of Mobile, for appellee.

BOULDIN, J.

The suit is for personal injuries alleged to be the result of negligence of the defendant or its employees.

Defendant owned and operated a public retail store in the city of Mobile. The plaintiff was a customer. While passing through the store toward the cashier's office to pay her bill, she stumbled or tripped over the base of a weighing machine, penny in the slot weighing scales, and fell to the floor receiving some injuries.

The first count of the complaint, to which demurrer was sustained, is defective in failing to allege that defendant's agents, servants, or employees, charged with the negligence, were acting within the scope of their employment.

The causal negligence charged in the second count is, "The defendant's agents, servants or employees while acting within the scope of their employment so negligently placed, allowed or suffered" the weighing machine "to protrude into the aisle or space in said store provided for customers" that plaintiff tripped or stumbled and fell. The count further shows plaintiff was at the time in the store for the purpose of paying her bill.

The keeper of a public store is under duty to its customers, as invitees, to exercise reasonable care to keep the passways therein in a safe condition--meaning safe to persons in the exercise of ordinary care while using the passway. O'Brien v. Tatum, 84 Ala. 186, 4 So. 158; So. Ry. Co. v. Bates, 194 Ala. 78, 69 So. 131, L.R.A.1916A, 510; [111 So. 239] Hertz v. Advertiser Co., 201 Ala. 416, 78 So. 794, L.R.A.1918F, 137.

When a complaint alleges the facts from which this duty arises, it is sufficient to charge the negligence, failure of duty, in general terms. Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 591, 73 So. 933; L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Robinson, 213 Ala. 522, 105 So. 874; Demopolis Telephone Co. v. Hood, 212 Ala. 216, 102 So. 35.

Under this rule count 2 sufficiently charges negligence in allowing an obstruction in the passway. The term "negligently" imports a breach of duty in maintaining the obstruction in that manner which a man of reasonable prudence and care would recognize as unsafe or dangerous to persons in the rightful use of the passway. Dangerous in this regard means that condition from which a reasonably careful man would anticipate injury to others.

Count 3, as amended, is in substance the same as count 2.

Count A, however, added by amendment, presents the same issue and is supported by the same evidence as counts 2 and 3 above. It merely charges expressly what the others do in general terms--that the weighing machine protruding into the aisle was a dangerous obstruction negligently allowed or maintained--and ascribes the injury broadly to negligent failure to use due care to keep the premises reasonably safe. Under this count all the facts were presented in evidence, and the charge of the court gave to plaintiff all the benefits to be derived from a proper charge upon the rejected counts. In such case error in rulings on the pleadings works no injury to the party and does not warrant a reversal. Error in the rejection of evidence going merely to the extent of injury and damages, where the record clearly shows a finding for the defendant because not liable for the injury, will not work a reversal. Wilson Bros. v. M. & O.R.R. Co., 208 Ala. 581, 94 So. 721; Brothers v. Norris, 209 Ala. 426, 96 So. 328.

For...