DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 72
Citation Numbers: 221 Pa. 25, 69 A. 1124, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 423
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Filed Date: 4/20/1908
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
The plaintiff in this case entered the department store of the defendants for the purpose of making purchases. While walking along one of the principal aisles in the store, she stumbled upon an obstruction or inequality in the passageway, caused by an incline which passed from a floor at a higher level at the left side of the aisle, tó a point even with the passageway, at or near the right side. The sides of the incline facing the direction from which those using the passageway approached were perpendicular, and varied in height from about eight inches at one side down to a point at the other. There
The learned trial judge was of the opinion that under the facts established by the evidence, with regard to the location and character of the obstruction, negligence might be inferred from its existence, and in a very careful charge pointing out that the defendants were bound to do what people of ordinary good judgment and common sense would do, and to refrain from doing that which people of common sense, under all the circumstances, would not do, he left it to the jury to say whether, judged by that standard, the maintenance of th¿ incline in the form in which it was constructed was a careless thing. We think he was right in so doing. So, also, as to the question of contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff. That, under the circumstances, was properly left to the jury as a question of fact. Counsel for appellant argued strongly for the application to this case of the more rigid rule which properly governs one walkingupon the public highway. But the circumstances are entirely different. Customers are invited into a store, and to walk along the aisles where goods are displayed upon every hand for the very purpose of catching the eye and attracting the attention of those who use the passageways. It is not reasonable to expect that the same degree of attention shall be bestowed upon the placing of the feet, under such circumstances, as would properly be required outside upon the public highway. The passageway ought to be kept reasonably clear for the use of those who at the time are expected to be, to some extent, using their eyes in the inspection of goods and merchandise spread before them for that
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Markman v. Fred P. Bell Stores Co. , 285 Pa. 378 ( 1925 )
Bilger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , 316 Pa. 540 ( 1934 )
Rogers v. Max Azen, Inc. , 340 Pa. 328 ( 1940 )
Lineaweaver Et Ux. v. Wanamaker , 299 Pa. 45 ( 1929 )
Truby & Truby v. Nolan , 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103 ( 1925 )
Greeves v. S. H. Kress Co. , 198 So. 171 ( 1940 )
Bell v. Feibleman & Co. , 164 So. 273 ( 1935 )
Palmer Et Ux. v. P.R.T. Co. , 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 258 ( 1930 )
Christman v. Segal , 143 Pa. Super. 87 ( 1940 )
Boock v. Acme Markets, Inc. , 347 Pa. 501 ( 1943 )
Silver v. Hause , 285 Pa. 166 ( 1925 )
MacDonald v. F. & W. Grand, Inc. , 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 317 ( 1926 )
Ralston v. Merritt , 117 Pa. Super. 487 ( 1935 )
Bartell v. Serio , 1938 La. App. LEXIS 601 ( 1938 )