Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 03 July 1962
• Docket Number: No. 39687,39687
• Citation: 372 P.2d 1021
• Parties: SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Doshia SANDERS, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1021

372 P.2d 1021

1962 OK 162

SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation Plaintiff in Error, v. Doshia SANDERS, Defendant in Error.

No. 39687.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 3, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is the duty of a store owner to keep the premises reasonably safe for invitees. This duty applies to conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares or pitfalls that are not known or observed by invitees.

2. The invitee assumes all normal or ordinary risks, and the storekeeper is not liable for injury to an invitee resulting from the normal and ordinary placing of a chair which was obvious or should have been observed in the exercise of ordinary care.

3. Record examined and held that there was no liability upon the storekeeper for conditions which were obvious.

Appeal from the District Court of Washita County; Hon. Weldon Ferris, Judge.

From a judgment awarding defendant in error damages for personal injury due to a fall caused by a chair, plaintiff in error appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Royse & Meacham, Elk City, plaintiff in error.

J. B. Beaird, Oklahoma City, defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This action was brought by Doshia Sanders, hereinafter called plaintiff, for damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on the premises owned and operated by Safeway Stores, Incorporated, hereinafter called defendant. Upon a trial to the jury, judgment was entered on the verdict for $1,918.72, and from the order overruling the motion for new trial defendant has appealed.

Defendant owned and operated a mercantile establishment in Cordell, Oklahoma. Plaintiff and her sister were customers of the store on June 13, 1960. They had completed their shopping, and plaintiff went through the checking stand, proceeded down the aisle leading to the exit at the west door, which was the main door of the store, turned toward an ordinary store safe approximately thirty-three inches high, on which she placed her sack of groceries. She straightened the groceries in the sack, took hold of the sack and started to the door to exit. Facing the door where customers exit was an aisle or passageway eighty inches in width, between the checking counter and the door. Against the west wall or windows were two or three chairs for sale, which were described as lawn chairs. They took up a space, so far as interference with progress down the aisle, of not to exceed twenty-four inches, thus leaving fifty-six inches in the aisle space. In turning, plaintiff caught her foot against one of the chairs and sustained some injury.

The defendant argues: (1) error of the court in overruling defendant's demurrer to the petition and objection to the introduction of evidence; (2) error of the court in overruling defendant's demurrer to the evidence; (3) error of the court in refusing to grant defendant an instructed verdict. We shall treat these propositions in a single issue.

It is generally held that it is the duty of the owner of a mercantile establishment to exercise ordinary care to keep the aisles, passageways and such other parts of the premises as are ordinarily used by the customers in a reasonably safe condition. J. C. Penney Company v. Campbell, Okl., 325 P.2d 1056; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Whitehead, 190 Okl. 464, 125 P.2d 194.

But the storekeeper is not an insurer. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Whitehead, supra. He need only exercise reasonable, ordinary, or due care to keep his premises reasonably safe for their use. Champlin Hardware Co. v. Clevinger, 158 Okl. 10, 12 P.2d 683.

The record shows the aisle where plaintiff fell is eighty inches wide. The chairs along the wall were twenty-four inches wide, leaving a clear space of fifty-six inches, or four and two-thirds feet. These chairs were plainly visible and nothing inherently dangerous about them.

We think the rule as set out in the headnote to § 50 on page 541 of 65 C.J.S. Negligence is the correct one.

'The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies only to defects which are in the nature of hidden dangers, and the invitee assumes all normal or obvious risks attendant on the use of the premises.'

In the case of Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Barnes, 198 Okl. 406, 179 P.2d 132, it is said in the body of the opinion:

'* * * Defendant was an independent contractor, but as an independent contractor, deceased was the defendant's invitee. It is the duty of the owner to keep the premises reasonably safe for the performance of work by a contractor; this duty applies to conditions which are in the nature of a hidden danger, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like; they are not...