Opinion ID: 1140208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Text: Mrs. DeWeese was entitled to assume that the floor was reasonably safe. Though she saw dampness and muddy tracks thereon, there was nothing to give her warning that it was particularly slippery when wet and there is no evidence that she was familiar with such fact. She testified to the contrary. In the nature of things, one entering a store must give at least part of her attention to watching where she is going to avoid other persons or obstacles. She obviously is not required, and likely in due care cannot, give her entire attention to any one hazard such as possible extraordinary slipperiness of the floor, which she has no particular reason to anticipate. Her testimony is susceptible of interpretation that she used the degree of care which ordinary and reasonable persons observe under such circumstances, which was the measure of her duty. [6] We do not regard the evidence of her negligence as being so certain and persuasive that all reasonable minds would so find. As we stated in Stickle v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.: [7]    the question of contributory negligence is for the jury whenever the evidence is such that jurors, acting fairly and reasonably, may say that they are not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to cause his own injury. The action of the trial judge was consistent with the policy which has invariably been approved by this court of submitting disputed issues as to negligence and contributory negligence to the jury unless the matter is so clear as to be free from doubt and reasonable minds would not differ thereon. [8] Affirmed. Costs to respondent. McDONOUGH, C.J., and WADE, J., concur.