Case Name: The F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Kinney
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-12-11
Citations: 121 Ohio St. 462
Docket Number: No. 21749
Parties: The F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Kinney.
Judges: Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 121
Pages: 462–467

Head Matter:
The F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Kinney.
(No. 21749
Decided December 11, 1929.)
Messrs. Kennedy, Manchester, Ford, Bennett S Powers, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Knight <& Gluck and Mr. Edward L. Williams, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The parties appear here in the reverse position from that in which they appeared in the courts below.
The plaintiff, Mary A. Kinney, in her petition alleged that while she was a customer and an invitee of the defendant she slipped upon a piece of candy which the defendant had allowed to remain on the floor of its store, and because thereof fell and received injuries.
At the trial, she gave testimony tending to support the allegations of her petition and described the substance as either a piece of candy or chewing gum, of no appreciable thickness and of a diameter of about that of a silver dollar. She called witnesses who variously described the substance as the size of a "silver dollar bill" and of a diameter of two and one-half inches. She called a witness who testified that two days prior to the accident to the plaintiff, she.slipped upon the same or a similar substance, at about the same place in the store.
A motion to direct a verdict was overruled, and at the close of all the evidence the motion was renewed and overruled, and the case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, motion for new trial was overruled, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Upon a review of the record, this court finds itself unable to say that there was no evidence tending to support the allegations of the petition, and, unless it were to adopt the practice of passing upon the weight of the evidence, it cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgments below, which is accordingly done.
Judgments affirmed.
Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Marshall, C. J., Kinkade and Jones, JJ., dissent.