Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1953 |
| Citation | 115 N.E.2d 33,94 Ohio App. 320 |
| Parties | , 51 O.O. 461 WISE v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Dale D. Rapp and Joseph H. Carpenter, Columbus, for appellant.
Wright, Harlor, Purpus, Morris & Arnold, Columbus, for appellee.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and, plaintiff electing not to plead further, dismissing the action. The sole assignment of error is that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant company, in connection with its store, maintained a parking lot on adjoining premises, the surface of which was black-topped. Plaintiff alleged that on the day in question she was a patron in the store and after having made some purchases was crossing the parking lot when she slipped and fell on ice, causing her injuries. The plaintiff complains that the defendant was negligent in permitting the ice to accumulate and remain on such parking lot for an unreasonable period of time; that the defendant had knowledge of such accumulation and that it created an existing hazard for defendant's patrons, but, nevertheless, permitted such hazard to exist; and that the defendant knew that the plaintiff in leaving its store had to walk upon such ice but failed to warn the plaintiff of the dangerous and hazardous condition.
The trial court relied on Turoff v. Richman, 76 Ohio App. 83, 61 N.E.2d 486. In that case the facts are set forth in the opinion, beginning on page 84 of 76 Ohio App., on page 487 of 61 N.E.2d as follows:
'There is no claim in this case that there was any defect in the construction of the driveway or that it was maintained in a dangerous condition, except as to such dangers as were created by the natural accumulation of ice and snow.
'It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants were negligent in failing to remove from the driveway the ice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corkery v. Greenberg, 50568
...States, 186 F.2d 578 (4th Cir. 1951); Hoffman v. The Kroger Company, 340 S.W.2D 152 (Mo. App., 1960); Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2D 33; Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 302 Mass. 184, 19 N.E.2d 39; and Levine v. Hart Motors Inc., Ohio App., 14......
-
Hanson v. Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc.
...175 Neb. 87, 120 N.W.2d 578; Levine v. Hart Motors Inc., 75 Ohio Law Abst. 265, Ohio App., 143 N.E.2d 602; Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33; Zide v. Jewel Tea Company, 39 Ill.App.2d 217, 188 N.E.2d 383; Brent v. Bank of Aurora, 132 Colo. 577, 291 P.2......
-
Hammond v. Allegretti
...Hallett v. Furr's, Inc. (1963), 71 N.M. 377, 378 P.2d 613; Watts v. Holmes (1963 Wyo.), 386 P.2d 718; Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1953), 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33; Zide v. Jewel Tea Company (1963), 188 N.E.2d 383, 39 Ill.App.2d 217.2 See: Cowin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. ......
-
Crawford v. Soennichsen
...condition is as well known to the plaintiff as the defendant. Annotation, 14 A.L.R.2d 780, notes 6 and 9; Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33; Turoff v. Richman, 76 Ohio App. 83, 61 N.E.2d 486; Levine v. Hart Motors, Inc., Ohio App., 143 N.E.2d 602; Bre......