Court Opinion

ID: 9765526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:05:10.960237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.347000
License: Public Domain

GEORGE M. FLANIGAN, Special Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The principal opinion points out that this case involves “the ‘self service’ type store which is usual in modern retail merchandising.” Supra at 780. The opinion also states:
The storeowner, therefore, must anticipate and must exercise due care to guard against dangers from articles left in the aisle.
... [T]he precise time will not be so important a factor. More important will be the method of merchandising and the nature of the article causing the injury.
... [T]he jury could have found that the plaintiff was injured by a hazard which could have been expected in the store by reason of its method of merchandising and that the defendant was derelict in its duty to take reasonable steps to protect customers against the dangers presented by merchandise in the aisle.
(Emphasis added.) Supra at 780-781.
The self-service store is not a recent phenomenon. Such stores have been common and popular in Missouri for at least several decades. The language quoted from the principal opinion seems to hold that this type of merchandising is inherently tor-tious. This is, of course, a departure from prior rulings of this Court, including Ward v. Temple Stephens Co., 418 S.W.2d 935, 938[2-5] (Mo.1967).
In Patton v. May Dept. Stores Co., 762 S.W.2d 38, 40, (Mo. banc 1988), this Court, in a unanimous opinion, said:
Also, in this self-service store where customers are invited to inspect, remove, and replace goods on the shelf there is an inference that another customer disarranged the goods. When the evidence only shows these two competing inferences and the probabilities are at least equal as to whether an employee or a customer caused the accidents, the courts have held the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case Neis [v. National Super Markets, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 690 (Mo.App.1982) ]. Under the facts of this case, however, the inference that an employee placed the box is shown superior to any inference that another customer placed it in the aisle and is sufficient to make a submissible case.
This Court promulgated, effective July 1, 1989, MAI 22.03 [1989 Revision] Verdict Directing Invitee Injured, which reads:
Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe: First, there was (here describe substance on floor which caused the fall) on the floor of defendant’s store and as a result the floor was not reasonably safe, and
Second, defendant knew or by using ordinary care should have known of this condition, and
Third, defendant failed to use ordinary care to [remove it] [barricade it] [warn of it], and
Fourth, as a direct result of such failure, plaintiff sustained damage.
(Unless you believe plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason of Instruction Number_(here insert number of affirmative defense instruction)].
*784As I construe the principal opinion, evidence that the defendant is a self-service store is sufficient to support the findings required by paragraph Second and paragraph Third. This makes a self-service store an insurer with respect to injuries sustained by an invitee by reason of an unsafe object or substance on the floor without regard to why it was there or how long it had been there. This is consistent with the notion that when misfortune strikes a person there must be another person, however innocent, who must bear the financial consequences. The instant holding will increase lawsuits in a society now overly litigious.
I would reverse the judgment.