Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROTHSCHILD v. FOURTH AND MARKET STREET REALTY CO.
An appeal by defendant corporation from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury.
The defendant owned and operated a building in San Francisco. On August 21, 1929, plaintiff entered the building as an invitee to purchase merchandise. She alleged that while walking along one of the hallways she slipped and fell by reason of the negligence of the defendant.
The testimony shows that the hallway was covered with linoleum. Plaintiff testified that the same was polished and slippery and that at the place she fell water had collected. She noticed the water after the accident; but whether the fall was due to this or the fact that the floor had been waxed is not clear from the testimony. Either inference might reasonably be drawn therefrom. She was corroborated by other witnesses as to the general condition of the linoleum. The floor was “like glass” according to one of them, who testified that she had often slipped thereon, but in each instance had saved herself from falling. Another testified that the wax used to polish the linoleum, which was applied frequently, caused this condition. While none of the witnesses had reported the facts to which they testified to the defendant, it is clear that the slippery condition of the floor had continued for several months. No evidence was offered by the defendant.
Defendant was under an obligation to exercise ordinary care for the safety of invitees upon its premises (19 Cal. Jur. “Negligence,” § 55, p. 621); but it has been held that the mere fact that one slips and falls is insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the defendant (Mautino v. Sutter Hospital Ass'n, 211 Cal. 556, 296 P. 76; Wegener v. Foster, 120 Cal. App. 260, 8 P.(2d) 154; Graham v. F. W. Woolworth Co. [Tex. Civ. App.] 277 S. W. 223; Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 201 N. C. 691, 161 S. E. 209; Tenbrink v. F. W. Woolworth Co. [R. I.] 153 A. 245; Chilberg v. Standard Furniture Co., 63 Wash. 414, 115 P. 837, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1079; Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co., 198 N. C. 559, 152 S. E. 625; Spickernagle v. Woolworth, 236 Pa. 496, 84 A. 909, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 132). However, the question whether the condition which caused the injury had existed so long as to be discoverable by the defendant within a reasonable time is one for the jury [Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra; Headington v. Central Building Co., 137 Kan. 350, 20 P.(2d) 816; Robinson v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 80 Mont. 431, 261 P. 253; Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. v. Weber (C. C. A.) 51 F.(2d) 1051; De Velin v. Swanson (R. I.) 72 A. 388; Brown v. Holzwasser, Inc., 108 Cal. App. 483, 291 P. 661; Rea v. Southern Pacific Co., 105 Cal. App. 559, 288 P. 151]; and, where there is testimony as to the conditions previous to the accident by persons who had also slipped on the same floor, such testimony is evidence tending to show notice to the defendant of the dangerous condition [Judson v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 242 Mass. 269, 136 N. E. 103; S. H. Kress & Co. v. Dyer (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S.W. (2d) 986; John Gerber Co. v. Smith, 150 Tenn. 255, 263 S. W. 974]. While the accident may have been caused by water on the floor of which defendant had no knowledge, nevertheless the jury might reasonably have found from the evidence that the floor, due to the wax polish, was unsafe, and that this condition had existed for such a length of time that defendant must have known the fact. That different inferences as to the cause of the injury might be drawn from the evidence is no ground for holding that the conclusion of the jury is unsupported. 2 Cal. Jur. “Appeal and Error,” § 949, p. 934.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 8889.
Decided: July 10, 1934
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)