Court Opinion

ID: 9846831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:49:01.061384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.014476
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion imposes on every storekeeper a rule of strict liability for an injury to a customer who slips and falls because of water tracked into his store by other customers. The storekeeper is made an insurer of the safety of a customer who is injured by a normal condition encountered daily during the rainy season in Oregon by the entire populace.
There is no charge in this case of improper construction of either the store entrance or the floor. There is no charge that the commonly used asphalt tile covering the floor was hazardous. This was a typical store entrance and a floor covering in common use in thousands upon thousands of stores throughout this region.
The situation was one encountered by every person who shops in Oregon during our rainy season — a floor wet with water tracked in by customers on their shoes and by water dripping from umbrellas and raincoats. These conditions are not confined to shops, but are en*193countered everywhere — on the streets, and even in our homes. Why should strict liability be imposed under these circumstances?
I think Gill v. Meier & Frank Co., 208 Or 536, 303 P2d 211 (1956), was properly decided. It is mere sophistry to say that that case was decided on the ground that the storekeeper “is never liable for a hazardous condition which is known to the invitee.” The ratio decidendi of the opinion is crystal clear. I think Gill v. Meier & Frank Co. should control our decision in this case.
The majority relies on Manning’s, Inc. v. Bloch, 261 F2d 876 (9th Cir 1958), but fails to mention the structural defect in the form of a “quite steep” slope of the entrance way which was decisive in that case.
I dissent.
Perry, C. J., and Goodwin, J., concur in this opinion.