Sharpton v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Nos. 41491,41492,s. 41491,3 |
| Citation | 145 S.E.2d 101,112 Ga.App. 283 |
| Parties | Mrs. C. M. SHARPTON v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Inc. C. M. SHARPTON v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Inc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A petition alleging that the plaintiff was injured as a result of slipping and falling on a green, slippery substance not observable to her in the check-out aisle of the defendant's grocery store, which could have been seen by an employee of the defendant who directed customers to use the aisle, stated a cause of action.
The plaintiff in Case No. 41491 sued for damages for personal injuries, alleging the following facts: The plaintiff was a customer in the defendant's grocery store. In the check-out aisle where purchases made in the store are paid for, customers stand in line close together for check-out, payment, and delivery of articles purchased, one customer following the other within approximately twenty inches, from back to chest.
Immediately before the plaintiff approached the check-out counter and aisle to pay for purchases there was an attendant, presumably an employee of the defendant, on the outside part of the check-out counter putting cigarettes or other items in a rack. Said employee motioned to or told the plaintiff's husband, who was immediately ahead of her, to check out through the last aisle next to the office of the store. A green, slippery substance was on the floor at that time and the employee filling the rack was in a position to see it by casual observation and in the exercise of ordinary care. It was in full view of this employee and was not concealed. The employee placing items in a rack failed to observe the slippery green matter. The substance could not have been dropped, placed, or thrown after the plaintiff's entry into the aisle.
As the plaintiff approached the check-out counter to pay for purchases the floor in front of her was obscured by reason of the closeness of customers in front of her, and the defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known this fact.
The clerk at the check-out counter at the time was in a position to see the floor space in the immediate area of the check-out aisle and counter and to determine whether it was free from foreign objects and substances. When the plaintiff entered the check-out area she was preceded by other persons of closely that petitioner's direct view of the area was obscure and in the act of stepping forward her right foot landed upon a piece of vegetable leaf located in said check-out area approximately the size of a silver dollar, which caused her to fall and be injured. The petitioner did not see the substance. Allegations of the defendant's negligence causing the plaintiff's injury included failure to remove the foreign substance before permitting and requiring the plaintiff to use the area; failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger; and leaving the substance (a vegetable leaf or other slick substance) in the check-out area which it required the plaintiff to use for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care it should have been seen and removed.
In Case No. 41492 the husband of the plaintiff in Case No. 41491 sued for damages for loss of his wife's services and for medical expenses. The husband's petition alleged that the wife slipped, fell and was injured while checking out of the defendant's store because of the defendant's negligence 'in permitting a slick and foreign substance to remain on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Krystal Co.
...249, 381 S.E.2d 413 (1989); Winn-Dixie Stores v. Hardy, 138 Ga.App. 342, 345, 226 S.E.2d 142 (1976); Sharpton v. Great A & P Tea Co., 112 Ga.App. 283, 285-286, 145 S.E.2d 101 (1965); S.H. Kress & Co. v. Flanigan, 103 Ga.App. 301, 303(1), 119 S.E.2d 32 (1961). Here, the evidence gives rise t......
-
Kroger Co. v. Brooks
...& Co. v. Flanigan, 103 Ga.App. 301, 303, 119 S.E.2d 32 (1961), where the employee was six feet away, and Sharpton v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 112 Ga.App. 283, 145 S.E.2d 101 (1965), where the employee was several check-out aisles away, restocking merchandise on a different check-out aisle. Th......
-
Telligman v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 62649
...knowledge thereof. See generally Winn-Dixie Stores v. Hardy, 138 Ga.App. 342, 226 S.E.2d 142 (1976); Sharpton v. Great A & P Tea Co., 112 Ga.App. 283, 145 S.E.2d 101 (1965). Compare Auerbach v. Padgett, 122 Ga.App. 79, 176 S.E.2d 193 (1970); Holtzclaw v. Lindsay, 122 Ga.App. 703, 178 S.E.2d......
-
Piggly-Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Tucker
...seen the substance and removed the hazard. S. H. Kress & Co. v. Flanigan, 103 Ga.App. 301, 119 S.E.2d 32; Sharpton v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 112 Ga.App. 283, 145 S.E.2d 101.' Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Hardy, supra, p. 345, 226 S.E.2d p. 145. However, the plaintiff's explanation of the fact......