Court Opinion

ID: 9573267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:51:17.745208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.465516
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
To my mind, it would have been the better practice for the trial court to have given the jury an instruction stating the substance of defendant’s requested Instruction No. 5, but leaving out the matter in the objectionable first sentence (requiring the jury to find defendant placed the banana on the floor before finding for plaintiff).
Plaintiff, in his brief, in effect states that the defendant, without objection from plaintiff, argued to the jury that the proof *897did not show that defendant had notice of the banana on the floor and further that the proof did not show that the banana had been on the floor long enough that defendant’s employees should have found and removed it.
Thus it would appear the jury considered the notice issue and the duty of defendant’s employees to do such cleaning and make such frequent inspections as it may have determined to have been reasonably necessary to keep the store floor clear of slippery substances.
That being true, the instructions given seem adequate in all respects. Indeed, no objection to them other than the failure to give defendant’s requested instruction No. 5 was raised.
I therefore concur specially.