Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Feeback
| Decision Date | 07 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40262,40262 |
| Citation | 390 P.2d 519 |
| Parties | SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, and Edwin Tatum, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Rachel C. FEEBACK, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A customer of a retail store injured in a fall caused by slipping on vegetables lying on the store floor may not recover damages from the owner or manager of the store without proof that such vegetables were negligently left there by owner or some employee or had been there for sufficient time after the latter had actual or constructive knowledge thereof to have removed it in the exercise of ordinary care.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Creek County, Bristow Division, State of Oklahoma; G. B. Chuck Coryell, Trial Judge.
Defendant in error customer instituted this action against plaintiffs in error for damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from a fall caused by slipping on carrots on the floor of defendant Safeway's store, managed by defendant Tatum. From an adverse judgment and order overruling their motion for a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed with directions to grant a new trial.
Hudson, Hudson, Wheaton, Kyle & Brett, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
Walker & Gilder, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the customer of a retail food store may recover money damages from the owner and manager thereof, respectively, for personal injuries said to have proximately resulted from a fall caused by her slipping on some carrots which were lying on the floor of an aisle necessarily traversed by plaintiff and other customers in the course of their shopping, absent any proof whatsoever that store personnel either placed the carrots or knew or should have known they were there and so could have removed them or warned plaintiff.
This appeal arises from an action instituted by defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, for damages for personal injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped on some carrots on the floor of the store of plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant or by name, Safeway. Such Safeway store was managed by plaintiff in error, Edwin Tatum, hereinafter referred to as defendant or by name.
The plaintiff in her petition alleged that on December 23, 1959, at approximately 2:30 P.M. she entered defendant's store to make some purchases; that as she was passing the vegetable counter 'she stepped upon some vegetables which were negligently left on the floor by said defendant and the agents, servants and employees thereof, causing same to be slick and causing this plaintiff to slip and fall violently to the floor'; that 'such fall resulted in severe painful and permanent injuries' to her.
Plaintiff further alleged that defendants were guilty of negligence in that they failed to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to shop; that they permitted said vegetables to be and remain on the floor when they knew or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known that such would cause the floor to be slick and dangerous and likely cause its customers to fall; that defendants failed to inspect said floor and remove said vegetables from the floor.
The defendants for their answer pleaded a general denial and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
For reversal of the judgment based upon and approving a $1500.00 verdict for plaintiff, defendants advance two propositions. The first is:
'The Court erred in overruling the defendants' demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict because of the plaintiff's failure to prove any negligence on the part of the defendants'.
Under such proposition defendants contend that 'The record is void of any evidence of the defendants having knowledge of foreign matter on its floor, that defendants having created such a condition or that such condition existed for sufficient time the defendants through the exercise of ordinary care should have known of the conditions'.
On the issue of negligence there were three witnesses, plaintiff, Mrs. Billings and defendant Tatum. The plaintiff testified:
* * *
* * *
.
Mrs. Billings testified that she did not see plaintiff fall; that she saw two ladies 'helping her up'; that there 'was a mess of carrots on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., WINN-DIXIE
...may prove that a dangerous condition resulted from a negligent act of the store owner or his employees. See Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Feeback, 390 P.2d 519 (Okl.1964); Fuller v. Rahill, 496 P.2d 785 (Okl.1972). Second, where the dangerous condition is not attributable to the negligence of the......
-
J. C. Penney Co. v. Barrientez
...plaintiff against suffering injury because of it. The opinions of this court cited in support of their theory are: Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Freeback, Okl., 390 P.2d 519, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Criner, Okl., 380 P.2d 712, J. C. Penney Co. v. Johnson, Okl., 364 P.2d 111, and Tweed v. First Na......
-
Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...created by a negligent act of defendant or its employees. Fuller v. Rahill, 496 P.2d 785, 788-89 (Okla.1972); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Feeback, 390 P.2d 519, 520-21 (Okla.1964). Second, plaintiff could show that defendant allowed a dangerous condition to remain in the restroom, i.e., defenda......
-
Glover v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 46511
...fall case, appellant's evidence had to show how long the substance had been on the floor, relying principally upon Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Feeback, Okl., 390 P.2d 519 (1964). Also argued extensively by both parties are Fuller v. Rahill, Okl., 496 P.2d 785 (1972); Kassick v. Spicer, Okl., 49......