Case Name: EVANS v. S. S. KRESGE CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1940-04-01
Citations: 290 Mich. 698
Docket Number: Docket No. 24, Calendar No. 40,361
Parties: EVANS v. S. S. KRESGE CO.
Judges: Sharpe, Potter, and Chandler, JJ., concurred with McAllister, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 290
Pages: 698–706

Head Matter:
EVANS v. S. S. KRESGE CO.
On Rehearing.
1. Appeal and Error — Statement of Questions Involved — Directed Verdict.
Question reading: "Is a jury question raised as to defendant storekeeper’s liability for negligence, upon the mere showing that while plaintiff was walking in an aisle of the store, she slipped and fell near the end of a lunch counter at which they sell barbecue and hot dog sandwiches, discovering after she had fallen that there was on her foot, a piece of fat meat sticking out of the side of her foot, there being no showing that the meat caused her to slip?” sufficiently presented the question of whether the court was in error in refusing to direct a verdict as requested at the dose of plaintiff’s proofs.
2. Negligence — Storekeepers—Condition of Floor — Inferences— Directed Verdict.
In action for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff as she fell while passing in front of defendant’s lunch counter on her way to another part of the store, evidence most favorable to plaintiff at close of her proofs when defendant moved for a directed verdict, showing that, on some previous occasions, greasy paper napkins were observed upon the floor, but which failed to disclose how long they were left there held, not to justify inference that storekeeper was negligent as he is not an insurer of the safety of customers regardless of care exercised.
3. Same — Storekeepers—Burden of Proof.
Plaintiff customer who failed to establish that she was injured by reason of the failure of defendant storekeeper to' maintain reasonable supervision relative to keeping the floor clear of particles of food or other substances likely to cause customers to slip thereon, although such was her theory of defendant’s negligence, was not entitled to recover damages.
Sharpe, Chandler, and McAllister, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Genesee; Elliott (Philip), J.
Submitted April 5, 1939.
(Docket No. 24, Calendar No. 40,361.)
Decided November 9, 1939.
Submitted on rehearing March 2, 1940.
Decided April 1, 1940.
Case by Alice Evans against S. S. Kresge Company, a corporation, for damages for personal injuries sustained by falling in a store. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Reversed without a new trial on rehearing.
Ralph M. Freeman, for plaintiff.
Millard & Roberts and Alexander, McCaslin & Cholette, for defendant.
Charles R. Fox, amicus curiae, on petition for rehearing.

Opinion:
McAllister,, J.
On November 9, 1934, plaintiff entered defendant's store in the city of Flint and, after walking about 20 feet down an aisle, slipped and fell, suffering serious injury. After she had fallen, she noticed a piece of fatty meat, about the size of a dollar, mashed on the sole of her shoe.
Just inside the door of the store, defendant has a lunch counter approximately 25 feet long and about 4% feet high. Hamburg sandwiches, barbequed meat, and soft drinks are sold at the counter. There are no stools or chairs for the customers. When they eat they stand in the aisle at the lunch counter, or cross to the other side of the aisle and eat at a candy counter. There was testimony that greasy paper napkins were thrown on the floor of the aisle from time to time, and that pieces of meat and food fre quently dropped on the floor as the result of people eating in the aisles. Defendant claims that a lookout is kept for such food fragments on the floor and that a porter is employed whose sole duty it is to sweep the floor of the aisle at certain hours during the day. Several thousand people visit the store daily.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant alleging that it was guilty of negligence in failing to use reasonable care in maintaining a safe passageway in the store, and that her injuries resulted from such negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff; and the court denied a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and for a new trial.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not seeing the meat on the floor before she slipped upon it; and that there was no evidence of any negligence on its part. Negligence would not be imputed to plaintiff for failing to look out for danger if, under the surrounding circumstances, she had no reason to suspect that such danger was to be apprehended. Lawrence v. Bartling & Dull Co., 255 Mich. 580; Baldwin, Personal Injuries (2d Ed.), p. 138, § 146. See 45 C. J. p. 954. Plaintiff was not patronizing the lunch counter, but was proceeding in the aisle to the stocking department. She could not be said, as a matter of law, to be under obligation to look for an unsafe condition of the floor. Brown v. Stevens, 136 Mich. 311 (16 Am. Neg. Rep. 101); Wine v. Newcomb, Endicott & Co., 203 Mich. 445.
Filipowicz v. S. S. Kresge Co., 281 Mich. 90, relied upon by defendant, can be distinguished from the facts in the instant case. In that case the plaintiff was injured as a result of slipping on a stairway. After receiving medical treatment on the premises and leaving the store, she discovered that her dress and stockings had black grease marks upon them, and afterward testified that the stairway had felt as though it were slippery. A judgment in her favor was set aside on the ground that there was no evidence as to how the grease got upon the stairway and that defendant had no knowledge of its presence, nor had it been on the steps long enough so that its employees should have known of it. In the case before us, there was considerable evidence that on the floor upon which plaintiff slipped there were often bits of meat and greasy paper napkins. It is a fair inference that defendant's employees either knew of such generally prevalent conditions or should have known of them.
With regard to defendant's claim that there was no evidence of negligence on its part, while it appears that there was no proof as to how long the meat, upon which plaintiff slipped, had been on the floor, or whether it had fallen from the lunch counter or from the hands of a customer, reasonable inferences may be drawn from the facts. From testimony that pieces of meat often fell on the floor of the aisle, and that greasy napkins were often dropped in the aisle, it is a fair inference that the meat upon which plaintiff slipped came from the lunch counter; and that, because of the fact that such greasy food and greasy napkins were often on the floor, defendant was negligent in not maintaining the aisle in a reasonably safe condition for customers of the store and especially plaintiff. Under the testimony, such legitimate inferences could be drawn from the facts, by a jury. The question of defendant's negligence was one of fact.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
Sharpe, Potter, and Chandler, JJ., concurred with McAllister, J.