Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Blakely

• Decision Date: 14 March 1932
• Docket Number: 29880
• Citation: 162 Miss. 854,140 So. 336
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BLAKELY

140 So. 336

162 Miss. 854

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BLAKELY

No. 29880

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 14, 1932

Division B

1 NEGLIGENCE.

Whether floor of telegraph office on which customer fell was wet and slippery held, under evidence, for jury.

2 NELlGENCE.

It is telegraph company's duty to have office in which public are invited to transact business with and for company's benefit kept in reasonably safe condition.

HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

Action by Daisy Blakely against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Street & Street, of Laurel, for appellant.

The verdict in this case, is without substantial support in the evidence and is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The verdict is unreasonable because based upon unreasonable testimony.

It is the essence of negligence that the person to be charged should have had knowledge that there was a duty for him to perform. As negligence necessarily involves a violation or disregard of some duty known to the person charged therewith, it follows that knowledge of the facts out of which the duty arises is an essential element for consideration in determining whether one has exercised reasonable care or has been guilty of negligence. Accordingly, the general rule is that in order that an act or omission may be regarded as negligent, the person charged therewith must have knowledge that such act or omission involved danger to another.

45 C. J. 651-652.

The owner is liable to invited persons for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition, of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him and not to them, and was negligently suffered to exist without timely notice to the public to those who were likely to act upon such invitation.

20 R. C. L. 53.

The appellant owed to appellee the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises safe so as not to expose her to unnecessary danger, but it was not an insurer of her safety and the fact that she fell and was injured raises no presumption of negligence on the part of appellant.

45 C. J. 866; Kersge v. Fader, 158 N.E. 174; Spickernagle v. Woolworth Co., 84 A. 909; Woolworth Co. v. Williams, 41 F.2d 971; Bradford v. Woolworth Co., 140 S.E. 105; Graham v. Woolworth Co., 277 S.W. 223; Garland v. Furst Store, 107 A. 38; Torbet v. Woolworth Co., 238 N.W. 140.

A person who enters a public place in connection with the business carried on in the premises occupied the position of an invitee, and the proprietor only owes to such person the duty of exercising reasonable and ordinary care for his safety.

Quinn v. Utah Gas. Co., 421 Utah 113; Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426; Mona v. Erion, 223 A.D. 526.

The floors of a railroad station must be frequently washed, and they cannot be washed without becoming to some extent wet and slippery. Therefore, it is difficult to see wherein the defendant was in any wise negligent for having wet and slippery floors at the moment of the accident.

Curtis v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 233 N.Y. 554.

The mere fact that soap suds were on the stairs and that the step was very slippery during the process of washing the stairs did not make out a cause of action against the defendant.

Kerstein v. Goodman, 130 Misc. 714.

Collins & Collins, of Laurel, for appellee.

In a case where the evidence is conflicting and the verdict depends upon the weight to be given the testimony of the witnesses, and upon inferences to be drawn from facts proven and the conduct of the parties in interest a reversal will not be granted except for clear and manifest error in file rulings of the court, or where the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Cox v. Tucker, 97 So. 721.

It cannot be said to be negligence to mop a floor with water. But there are times when it is negligence to mop a floor with water and leave water on the floor.

It would be negligence to do the work at a time when the floor was being used by the public provided the floor was not left reasonably safe for the public to use.

Kress v. Rochward, 134 So. 82.

The appellant had knowledge of the condition at the time it was created because its servants created the condition.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

Daisy Blakely was plaintiff in the court below, and recovered a judgment for five hundred dollars for personal injuries caused by slipping and falling upon the floor of the office of the appellant, the Western Union Telegraph Company.

It was claimed that said fall was due to a wet and slippery condition of the floor, and the evidence as to...