Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Cherry

387 S.W.2d 108
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 28, 1965
Docket90
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 387 S.W.2d 108 (Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Cherry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Cherry, 387 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

SELLERS, Justice.

Mrs. Odie Cherry, as plaintiff, brought this suit to recover for personal injuries received by her while shopping in Brook- . shire Bros., Inc.’s store, as defendant. The jury found issues in plaintiff’s favor and .assessed her damages at $17,750. From this judgment the defendant has duly prosecuted ■this appeal.

The defendant, by several assignments of error, complains that there is no evidence to support the .jury’s verdict of negligence on the part of the defendant, and we are of the opinion this contention must be sustained. The jury found from the issues submitted that Mrs. Odie Cherry slipped while in Brookshire Bros, store on or about Friday, January 13, 1961; that she slipped on a turnip green leaf; that she sustained injuries to her body; that the turnip green leaf in question had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time for the defendant’s agents, servants, or employees in the exercise of ordinary care to have discovered and removed the same; and that such failure to discover and remove the turnip green leaf from the floor by the time the defendant, Mrs. Odie Cherry, slipped was the proximate cause of Mrs. Cherry’s injuries. Thé jury further found that the defendant did not fail to sweep the floor of its store at frequent intervals on. the occasion in question.

Other findings of the jury ’were to the effect that the defendant did not make regular and periodic inspection of the floor of its store on the occasion in question; that said failure was negligence and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

This kind of case is not uncommon, and the courts have now held that, in order for a plaintiff in this character of case to recover, the burden is on the claimant to show one of three things, to-wit:

“1) That the Defendant put the foreign substance on the premises, or
“2) That the Defendant knew the foreign substance was on the premises and willfully or negligently failed to remove it, or
“3) That the foreign substance had been upon the premises for such a period of time that it would have been discovered and removed by the Defendant had the Defendant exercised ordinary care.”

*110 J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Tyra, Tex.Civ.App., 381 S.W.2d 215, and cases therein cited.

Three witnesses testified about the turnip green leaf on the floor of the aisle where the plaintiff slipped. The first witness was Linwood Porter, brother-in-law of Mrs. ' Cherry. He testified that he entered Brook-shire’s store about 12:30 on the date in question; that he got himself a buggy and proceeded down the isle on the right-hand side of the store; that this aisle is about six or seven feet wide and some 90 or 100 feet long; that he shopped in this store about twice a week and was familiar with the store. The dairy mart was at the far end of the aisle from which he entered. With reference to the leaves that he observed on direct examination, he testified:

“Q All right sir. Did you notice anything unusual on the floor of the store ?
“A Well, I noticed some leaves on the floor.
“Q What kind of leaves?
“A It was turnip green leaves.
“Q How many of these leaves did . you see or did you count?
“A Well, I didn’t count them. There was more than one.
“Q All right sir. Could — did you no- ■ tice the- appearance of these-leaves? . • ' ' >
“A Well, they looked bruised. They’d been laying there few hours.
“Q Did the leaves appear to be clean or dirty on top?
“A They was dirty.
“Q About what position in the aisle were these leaves located?
“A Well, there was one in particular almost in the center aisle and there was more laying on the side.
# * * *
"Q All right sir. Was there any particular reason you happened to see these leaves on the floor? -
“A Well, I generally keep my eye on the floor as I go down.
“Q Why were yo,u looking down at the floor Mr. Porter?
“A Well, I just — my eyes go back- . wards and forwards, up and down and the main reason — * *
On cross examination:
“Q And how many leaves did you. see?
“A Well, I saw more than two.
“Q How many ?
“A Well now I didn’t stop and take count how many and count all of them. I know there was 2 or 3.
“Q Over what areas were they?
“A Over 5 or 6 foot area.
“Q You say there were at least three?' ' “A. Yeah.’'
’' “Q And you observed them well " ■ ' 'enough that you could tell they appéáred to be bruised?
“A I did.
'■ “Q All three of them appear to be bruised ?
“A Yeah.
* * * * * *
“Q Did you- — now then, with reference to the — up and down the aisle, were they close to one end or close to the other end of the aisle ?
“A Well, as coming down the aisle they was nearer the far end, back west of the building. Vegetables, is on that end of the aisle.
*111 “Q That would be back towards the dairy case wouldn’t it?
“A That’s right.
“Q The vegetable counter is on the north side of the building, isn’t ■ it?
“A That’s right.
“Q And these — what you saw would have been back west towards the dairy counter, is that correct?
“A Well, I don’t know as be west of the dairy counter.
“Q Towards — I said west towards the dairy counter?
“A Yeah.
“Q Did you say about how far they would be back towards the back' of the store there or how far ■ they were from the dairy counter ?
“A Oh, they was 12 or 15 feet.
“Q About how long is that aisle please sir?
■“A I would say it’s in the neighborhood between 90 and 100 feet.
******

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kimbell, Inc. v. Blount
562 S.W.2d 10 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Furr's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Arellano
492 S.W.2d 727 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Rackley v. Model Markets, Inc.
417 S.W.2d 89 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Shurett v. Osborne
408 S.W.2d 740 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 S.W.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brookshire-bros-inc-v-cherry-texapp-1965.