Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc.
| Citation | 334 S.W.2d 520 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 3730,3730 |
| Parties | Mrs. Robbie D. SHERWOOD, a Widow, Appellant, v. MEDICAL & SURGICAL GROUP, INC., a Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Henry W. Flagg, Galveston, for appellant.
McLeod, Mills, Shirley & Alexander, Galveston, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, W. N. Arnold, Jr., Houston, for appellee.
The trial court withdrew this 'slip and fall' case from the jury at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff says this was error because the evidence raised a jury issue. The real question is whether the evidence, under familiar rules, raised any of the pleaded alternative issues that defendant put the foreign substance on which plaintiff slipped on the floor; or knew that it was on the floor, negligently failing to remove it; or that it had been on the floor long enough that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care.
Appellant's narration of the evidence in her brief is summarized as follows: she slipped and fell in offices which were cleaned daily. It was not known what was used in cleaning the floors. She entered defendant's premises wearing low wedge-heeled shoes, and prior to her fall did not observe any foreign substance on the floor. She was 'not especially looking down at the floor.' As she walked through the reception hall about two feet from the receptionist's desk, she 'stepped in something real slippery' and fell. After receiving attention from doctors she came back to the place where she had fallen and noticed After she got home she noticed there was a dry substance around a hole in her hose at the knee. 'When I did it this way and looked at it, it was sparkly.' The same substance was smeared on her hand, arm, knee and cheek. A witness who removed this substance two days later identified it as being floor wax or floor polish. Another witness testified that a 'sticky substance' was noticed on plaintiff after she returned to her home, which looked like floor wax. This was 'just a guess' on her part. We have examined the record and find no additional favorable evidence or material circumstances.
App...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keetch v. Kroger Co.
...Pacific Tea Co. v. Giles, 354 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc., 334 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1960, writ ref'd); R.R. Beard v. Henke & Pillot, Inc., 314 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1958, no writ)......
-
Louis v. Parchman
...error, since the same evidence from other sources was, in fact, admitted by the trial court. Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc., 334 S.W.2d 520 (Waco Civ.App., 1960, writ ref.). In Lenger v. Physician's General Hospital, Inc., 455 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.Sup., 1970) the Supreme Court, in af......
-
H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bruner, 5487
...H. E. Butt Grocery Company v. Russell (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco, 1965, writ ref.), 391 S.W.2d 571, and Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc. (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco, 1960, writ ref.), 334 S.W.2d 520. In Russell, the plaintiff slipped on a lettuce leaf. The opinion recites these as the salient fa......
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Giles
...Inc. v. Curtice Tex.Civ.App., 323 S.W.2d 355; O'Neal v. J. Weingarten, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 328 S.W.2d 793; Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 334 S.W.2d 520; Furr's, Inc. v. McCaslin, Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d Appellees frankly admit in brief and in oral argument befor......