Court Opinion

ID: 9713372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:14:23.851615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.410842
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring in result). Plaintiff testified : “I don’t remember seeing any tickets (betting-slips), not until after I got up.” The only other witness to the point, sworn for plaintiff, testified: “I did not see tickets on the floor before he (Jones) fell.”
*655On strength, of this testimony I hold that' plaintiff failed to prove that defendant was actionably neglh gent and that the issue of contributory negligence is consequently moot. See collection of cases cited in Konen v. Moose Lodge No. 288, 345 Mich 80. To paraphrase Whitehead v. Erle P. Halliburton, Inc., 190 Okla 120 (121 P2d 581), cited in Konen aforesaid: In the absence of evidence that the betting slips had been on the deck for a sufficient length of time só that in the exercise of ordinary care the defendant should have discovered and removed such slips, there was a failure of proof of negligence on the part of the defendant and there, hence, was no issue of fact to submit to the jury.
It was the betting slips, made slippery by the collected rainwater, that caused plaintiff to fall. He has shown the all-day presence of puddled rainwater on the deck but failed to show that the slips in question were there, in or near the puddles of water,- for such length of time as would bring into play the aforesaid rule of discovery and removal.
In accordance with constitutional mandate (Const 1908, art 7, § 7) the foregoing reasons for dissent, from the decision reached by today’s majority, are recorded in this case. I vote to affirm on ground that the first essential of plaintiff’s case — proof of actionable negligence — is lacking as a matter of law.
Smith, J., concurred with Black, J.
Eewards, J., took no part in the decision of this case.