Court Opinion

ID: 9625110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:28:16.098536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:08.439570
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice (dissenting). It is my firm belief there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case and take the case to the jury. The case is altogether different on its facts from DeBaca v. Kahn, 49 N.M. 225, 161 P.2d 630. There, the building in which plaintiff slipped on a spot of oil and injured'herself was a shoe store. Neither the proprietor nor anyone else knew or had any reason to suspect the presence of oil on the floor. The case is quite different, as here, where a cafeteria was operated and patronized by more than 800 customers daily with constant droppings on the floor of food, consisting of parts of soft rolls, the remnants of chicken pie and other articles of food. I feel quite convinced it was within the province of the jury to say whether the defendant knew, or should have known, of the presence on the floor of chicken pie, or some other slippery substance, dropped from tables or trays. Perhaps another employee armed with a broom and dust pan might have kept the floor free from such hazards. It was the jury’s province, not that of the court, to say. Since the majority say nay— when, as I feel, they should have said yea, I dissent.