Smith v. Safeway Store's, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3563.,3563. |
| Citation | 206 A.2d 264 |
| Parties | Juanita Gartrell SMITH, Appellant, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
William A. Mann, Washington, D. C., with whom Allan C. Swingle, Francis C. O'Brien, and William T. Clague, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Appellant sued to recover damages, for her injuries caused by a fall in one of appellee's stores. At the conclusion of appellant's case, appellee's motion for a directed verdict was granted, and this appeal followed.
Appellant testified that she went to the store to do some marketing, selected a few items, and then proceeded to the check-out counter where she realized she had forgotten something. As she returned to get it, according to her testimony, she tripped and fell when her foot became entangled in a potato chip rack which extended across the end of a section of shelving and protruded four to five inches into the aisle she was attempting to enter. On cross-examination appellant described the rack as consisting of shiny wire shelves supported by tubular metal legs approximately one inch in diameter tipped with black rubber feet at the bottom. Appellant admitted that the store was well lighted, and that the aisle into which she had started was approximately six feet wide. She testified, however, that she tripped on the rack because it protruded into the aisle and was not clearly visible since only a few bags of potato chips were placed on the lower shelves, thereby making it possible to see directly through it.
The rule is well settled that on defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff, who is entitled to every legitimate inference. Jackson v. Capital Transit Co., 69 App.D.C. 147, 99 F.2d 380, cert. denied, 306 U.S. 630, 59 S.Ct. 464, 83 L.Ed. 1032. In applying that rule here, however, we find no evidence sufficient to require submission of the question of defendant's negligence to the jury. Appellant's own evidence, including the deposition of a witness, established that there was ample space for passage both in front of and past the ends of the rack, and that the store was not crowded, the nearest person to the plaintiff being some six feet ahead of her in the aisle she was attempting to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suriano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...Paige v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 638 So.2d 4, 6 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (orange extension cord protruding onto floor); Smith v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 206 A.2d 264, 264 (D.C.App.1965) (lower rack protruding four to five inches into well lit aisle); Bud's Outlet v. Smith, 781 So.2d 219, 223 (Fla.Ap......
-
Medallion Stores, Inc. v. Eidt, 7714
...merchandise or other tangible objects thereon. In this connection see the following authorities: 61 A.L.R.2d 122; Smith v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 206 A.2d 264 (D.C.App., 1965); Engdal v. Owl Drug Co., 183 Wash. 100, 48 P.2d 232 (1935); Letiecq v. Denholm & McKay Co., 328 Mass. 120, 102 N.E.2......
-
Hines v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...this contention, as a matter of law, then the duty imposed upon shopkeepers would be all but meaningless. Neither Smith v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 206 A.2d 264 (1965), nor Brown v. Alabama Foods, Inc., D.C.App., 190 A.2d 257 (1963), is apposite. In both cases the defendant stores we......
-
Winthrop v. 1600 16TH Street Corporation
...difficulty. The law does not place upon the landlord the duty to prevent a careless tenant from injuring himself. Smith v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 206 A.2d 264 (1964). If appellant had followed his usual procedure in approaching the glass doors, there would have been no collision wi......