Court Opinion

ID: 9833778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:00:58.410494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.623401
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The appellee and the appellant have each filed a strong motion for rehearing in this cause, and we have carefully reconsidered the propositions presented by the appeal. We are still of the opinion that the testimony entirely fails to show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the presence on 'the floor of the banana at any time prior to the time the appellee’s wife stepped on the same and fell. There is no evidence to show when the banana got on the floor, nor how long it had been there. There is no testimony that its appearance or condition by reason of having been walked upon, mashed, etc., indicated or gave rise to any inference that the banana had been upon the floor any length of time, or such length of time as to charge the appellant with notice of its presence, thereby calling for removal of the same in the exercise of ordinary care to keep its premises safe. There is no evidence that the defendant’s clerk in the discharge of his duties at any time looked, or had occasion to look, in the direction of the -banana while it was on the floor.
Oral argument was permitted on the motions for rehearing herein, and the attorneys for appellee and appellant openly stated in their argument and agreed that if the judgment of the trial court be reversed then judgment should be rendered for appellant. This necessarily means, as is apparent from the record, that the case' has been fully developed and that a remand of the case would serve no useful purpose. Upon that hypothesis we conclude that the judgment should be reversed and judgment here rendered for the appellant.
Therefore, the appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled and the appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted.