Court Opinion

ID: 9577448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:03.042888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:37.658568
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. Before appellants can recover they must show that the floor was dangerously slippery. The duty owed by the appellee to the appellants was to exercise ordinary care in the application and selection of the material used in treating its floor and in the maintenance of the floor thereafter. Ong v. Pacific Finance Corporation of California, 70 Ariz. 426, 222 P.2d 801 (1950). The evidence in this case falls woefully short of indicating that the floor was “dangerously slippery.” It consisted of Mrs. Cantu’s statements that while in the store “I felt my shoes slippery”; that “The floors were brillant”; and that Mrs. Martinez did fall and made a scratch or skid mark on the floor where she fell. The testimony of the cashier quoted by the majority is taken out of context. The cashier, who no longer works for appellee, testified on direct examination that she saw the shoes Mrs. Martinez was wearing and that they had a “slippery sole.” She testified that she wore sneakers at work stating: “. . . I have worked for 22 years off and on in grocery stores, and when you are running around and if you arent’ sure footed, you can fall, no matter *415what kind of floor you are on, and so I wear sneakers to work in so I don’t slip and fall.” Believing that this testimony conflicted with an earlier statement that she had given, appellants were allowed to cross-examine this witness as a hostile witness. She was asked whether or not she made the following statement:
“So we looked the floor over and found nothing but a mark from her shoes. No wetness, no produce, no nothing. She was no more than two steps out of the bakery. She had on shoes, neolite heels, which have a tendency to slip on these floors. I know, because I was wearing them and switched to sneakers. All this occurred in the evening. The mark from her shoes was about a foot long and looked like any skid marks.”
The cashier stated that she did make the foregoing statement, but went on to explain, when questioned by appellee’s counsel, that the floor was not in a slippery condition at the time of the accident; that she was wearing tennis shoes in her new job “. . . Because on any floor, if you are running around or something, when you are clerking you have certain duties to perform, and it is easy to slip if you aren’t sure footed.”
The gist of the cashier’s testimony was that it is easier to slip when wearing Neolite or leather heels and soles than it is when wearing tennis shoes. To equate this testimony to proof of the fact that the floor was in a dangerously slippery condition is unjustified.
The testimony and evidence in this case is similar to that rejected by the Oklahoma court in J. C. Penney Company v. Hoover, 414 P.2d 293 (Okl.1966) wherein the court stated at page 296:
“Extrinsic evidence clearer and more convincing than testimony by plaintiff and her companion, subjectively describing the floor as ‘slick’, is necessary. Though this testimony was coupled with evidence of a mark apparently made by her skidding shoe, this to [sic] has been declared insufficient; Dixon v. Hart, 344 Ill.App. 432, 101 N.E.2d 282, 285. Presence of such a skid mark, while relevant, is not conclusive; 63 A.L.R.2d at 603-604.”
A collection of cases sustaining the sufficiency of the evidence appears in 63 A.L.R.2d pp. 606 through 612. In S. H. Kress & Co. v. Evans, 70 Ariz. 175, 218 P.2d 486 (1950), the plaintiff’s evidence indicated that the floor felt “slicky” to her and that when she arose after the fall her dress and stockings were soiled with oil and grease. The defendant’s evidence was that it caused its floors to be dressed at least once a week with a product known as “Myco Sheen” and that its employees applied this product in twenty to thirty minutes whereas the sales representative for Myco Sheen testified it should take two to two and one half hours to apply the product to the floor and if not properly applied it might cause trouble.
In Lamb v. Purity Stores, 119 Cal.App. 690, 7 P.2d 197 (1932) there was evidence that at the exact spot where the plaintiff fell the floor was much damper with oil than in other places and that one of her stockings and dress became soaked with; surplus oil.
In Nicola v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 50 Cal.App.2d 612, 123 P.2d 529 (1942), in addition to testimony that the floor was shiny and appeared to be slippery, there was evidence that defendant had knowledge that two persons had previously fallen on the floor and it also appeared that defendant’s manager had told the agent of the building-that at times they had trouble with the slippery floor.
In Henderson v. Progressive Optical System, 57 Cal.App.2d 180, 134 P.2d 807 (1943), not only did the floor appear highly polished but there also was an excessive deposit of wax on the floor, the plaintiff testifying that her foot scraped up a por*416tion of the wax and a spot of wax was left on her shoe.
In Sanders v. MacFarlane’s Candies, 119 Cal.App.2d 497, 259 P.2d 1010 (1953), plaintiff testified that she noted the floor appeared to be highly polished and that after she fell she felt the floor and it was waxy and sticky, and while still on the floor she heard a thump and discovered that another person had fallen.
In Baker v. Manning’s, Inc., 122 Cal.App.2d 390, 265 P.2d 96 (1953), the evidence showed that there was excessive wax on the floor and other persons had fallen at the same spot.
In First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Wylie, 46 So.2d 396 (Fla.1950), not only was there a skid mark on the floor where the plaintiff had slipped and fallen but there was an accumulation of wax on the bottom of the heel of the plaintiff’s shoe.
In Pilgreen v. Hanson, 89 Ga.App. 703, 81 S.E.2d 18 (1954) later 94 Ga.App. 423, 94 S.E.2d 752 (1956), the court held that the plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient when it alleged that there was a hump on the floor at the point where the plaintiff fell; that the floor had been made slippery by waxing and that insufficient lighting in the defendant’s restaurant gave the floor at the point at which the hump was located an appearance of being flat and level.
There are other cases set forth in the annotation, but they are along the same vein, each case having something other than the fact of a fall and testimony that the floor looked brilliant or shiny. The same annotation at pp. 612 through 619 sets forth cases holding the evidence to be insufficient.
It was incumbent in this case for the appellants to show that the appellee was negligent in the waxing or care of the floor or that in the exercise of ordinary care it knew or should have known of a dangerous or slippery condition of the floor. I am unable to find any such evidence. I would affirm the decision of the trial court.