Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 228
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
| Writing for the Court | COOPER; BROCK |
| Citation | 713 S.W.2d 640 |
| Parties | Bobby SIMMONS, and Wife Sheila Simmons, Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellee. 713 S.W.2d 640 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 228 |
Page 640
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellee.
713 S.W.2d 640
at Knoxville.
Martin L. Ellis, Steven Boyd Johnson, Butler, Vines, Babb & Threadgill, Knoxville, for appellants.
Norman H. Williams, Robertson, Williams, Ingram & Overby, Knoxville, for appellees.
COOPER, Justice.
This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff, Bobby E. Simmons, in a fall on steps located on premises of the defendant, Sears, Roebuck and Company. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiffs' proof. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted an appeal to determine whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, makes out a prima facie case of liability against the defendant. From our review of the record, we are of the opinion that it does and that it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant.
The record shows that at about 6:00 p.m. on May 19, 1980, the plaintiff accompanied his friend, John Cooper, to Sears to purchase some small tools. The tools were displayed and sold in the basement of Sears. The stairway leading to the basement is located near the Pearl Street entrance to Sears. There is a concession stand near the head of the stairway, where customers can purchase soft drinks, peanuts, popcorn, and the like for consumption within the store. It is not uncommon for there to be debris on the floor from the concession purchases.
Defendant's employees thoroughly sweep or vacuum the entire store each day before opening. After 1:00 p.m., the maintenance staff is reduced to one man who is on call to cleanup spills in addition to other duties assigned to him. The maintenance man also attempts to visit each department of the store during the afternoon and evening hours for cleanup purposes.
The stairway to the basement consists of ten terrazzo steps from the building's main floor to a landing and ten to twelve more steps to the basement. Plaintiff and his friend negotiated the first set of stairs and the landing without incident, though they did note considerable debris on the stairs. When plaintiff reached the second or third step of the second flight of stairs, he "stepped on something" with his right foot
Page 641
and his foot "rolled completely out from under [him]." When this happened, plaintiff lost his balance and "fell on the lower part of [his] back and bounced down the steps." The plaintiff did not undertake to identify the object or objects that caused his fall other than referring to it as "something" that rolled under his foot.After plaintiff fell, a pencil was found on the stairs at the approximate location of plaintiff's fall. There is nothing in the record to indicate who dropped the pencil or whether it is of the type used by employees of Sears, nor is there any direct evidence to show how long the pencil had been on the stairway. Noting this, the trial court and the majority of the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wortham v. Kroger Ltd., No. W2019-00496-COA-R3-CV
...that the premises owner, by exercising due care, should have discovered the dangerous condition. Simmons v. Sears,Page 11 Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641-42 (Tenn. 1986). Kroger contends that because Ms. Wortham was injured by an alleged dangerous condition on Kroger's property, the prem......
-
Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc.
...have become aware of such conditions." Self v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 885 F.2d 336, 338 (6th Cir.1989); Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn.1986), quoting Allison v. Blount Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn.App. 359, 390 S.W.2d 716, 718-19 (1965). A merchant is not an insurer of th......
-
Miranda v. CSC Sugar, LLC, No. W2017-01986-COA-R3-CV
...at 764; Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986)). Constructive notice may also be established by showing that the dangerous condition resulted from "a pattern of conduct, a ......
-
Bradley v. Wal-Mart Stores, E., LP, NO. 1:12-0045
...the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of such condition. Martin, supra. See also Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986). A plaintiff can also prove constructive notice through "a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or conti......
-
Wortham v. Kroger Ltd., No. W2019-00496-COA-R3-CV
...that the premises owner, by exercising due care, should have discovered the dangerous condition. Simmons v. Sears,Page 11 Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641-42 (Tenn. 1986). Kroger contends that because Ms. Wortham was injured by an alleged dangerous condition on Kroger's property, the prem......
-
Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc.
...have become aware of such conditions." Self v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 885 F.2d 336, 338 (6th Cir.1989); Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn.1986), quoting Allison v. Blount Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn.App. 359, 390 S.W.2d 716, 718-19 (1965). A merchant is not an insurer of th......
-
Miranda v. CSC Sugar, LLC, No. W2017-01986-COA-R3-CV
...at 764; Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986)). Constructive notice may also be established by showing that the dangerous condition resulted from "a pattern of conduct, a ......
-
Bradley v. Wal-Mart Stores, E., LP, NO. 1:12-0045
...the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of such condition. Martin, supra. See also Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986). A plaintiff can also prove constructive notice through "a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or conti......