Fingerman v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Fingerman v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

5 R.I. Dec. 96

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 8, 1929

DocketNo. 70528

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 96 (Fingerman v. F. W. Woolworth Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fingerman v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 5 R.I. Dec. 96 (R.I. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

OAPOTO'STO, J.

The -plaintiff claims that on April 14, 1926, about 10:30 a. m., while a customer in defendant’s store, she slipped upon a piece of waxed paper, was thrown to the floor and injured. The -plaintiff testified that the paper in question was trampled upon and pieces -of it were stuck to the floor. There was evidence 'that envelopes of a similar kind of paper and containing mérchandise were displayed on a nearby counter. Certain statements claimed to have -been made by a salesgirl who was not produced as a witness were excluded and the plaintiff’s exceptions duly noted. It is not the province of this Court to review i-ts own rulings. This phase of the case, therefore, must be left to a higher Court for determination.

The defendant denied liability by disclaiming any knowledge of any dangerous condition of the floor.

The -case is a border line case. The Court gave the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt and submitted the issue to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s motion for another trial reflects the hope of every unsuccessful litigant.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

OAPOTO'STO, J.

The -plaintiff claims that on April 14, 1926, about 10:30 a. m., while a customer in defendant’s store, she slipped upon a piece of waxed paper, was thrown to the floor and injured. The -plaintiff testified that the paper in question was trampled upon and pieces -of it were stuck to the floor. There was evidence 'that envelopes of a similar kind of paper and containing mérchandise were displayed on a nearby counter. Certain statements claimed to have -been made by a salesgirl who was not produced as a witness were excluded and the plaintiff’s exceptions duly noted. It is not the province of this Court to review i-ts own rulings. This phase of the case, therefore, must be left to a higher Court for determination.

The defendant denied liability by disclaiming any knowledge of any dangerous condition of the floor.

The -case is a border line case. The Court gave the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt and submitted the issue to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s motion for another trial reflects the hope of every unsuccessful litigant.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fingerman-v-f-w-woolworth-co-risuperct-1929.