F.W. Woolworth Co., Inc. v. Haynie

170 So. 150, 176 Miss. 703, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 160

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: October 19, 1936
• Docket: No. 32316.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding the appellee five hundred dollars damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while she was employed by appellant at the soda fountain in its Gulf-port store.

The declaration alleged, in substance, that, among appellee’s other duties at the soda fountain, she was required to wash dishes in sinks or compartments, in water that had been treated with some kind of chemical, the exact nature of which was unknown to her,, but called “Pur-a-fac;” that this chemically treated water overflowed onto the floor beneath the sinks and other compartments, thereby rendering her place to work unsafe; that in the performance of her duties she was required to stand and walk in this overflow water; and that, as a result. of using her hands in this chemically treated water, and having to stand in this overflow water, her hands and feet became affected, and pus formed around the nails of her fingers and toes, causing some of them to become disfigured, and causing her great pain and suffering;

Appellee testified that she was treated by two physicians for the infection and the diseased condition of her hands and feet, but she did not introduce either of these physicians, or any other expert evidence to show a causal connection between the diseased condition of her hands and feet and the chemically treated water which she was required to use. Over specified objections of tbe appellant, tbe appellee was permitted to testify that tbe condition of ber hands and feet was caused by the Pura-fac in tbe water wbicb sbe was required to use in tbe performance of ber duties, and tbe admission of tbis testimony is assigned as error. Appellee bad no knowledge of the constituent elements of tbe product used in tbe water witb wbicb sbe performed ber duties, and no knowledge or training wbicb would qualify ber to give expert testimony as to tbe effect of tbe use of Pur-a-fac for sterilization purposes. Tbis testimony was merely tbe unsupported opinion or conclusion of a nonexpert witness, witb no basis of facts upon wbicb to found it, other than tbe mere fact that tbe diseased condition existed, and it should have been excluded. Woolworth Co., Inc., v. Volking, 135 Miss. 410, 1.00 So. 3; Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Boone, 111 Miss. 881, 72 So. 777.

But in view of tbe undisputed testimony that Pur-a-fac is a product extensively used for antiseptic and sterilization purposes, and tbe opinions of numerous experts who testified for tbe appellant that a product containing tbe same chemicals as Pur-a-fac, even in higher percentages than those shown by a chemical analysis of tbe particular product used by appellant, would not be harmful to tbe bands and feet when diluted in water as herein shown by tbe evidence, that is, one tablespoonful to three gallons of water, tbe unsupported testimony of tbe nonexpert witness as to the cause of tbe diseased condition of ber bands and feet was not of sufficient probative value to furnish a basis upon wbicb to rest liability; and upon tbe whole evidence we are of tbe opinion that tbe peremptory instruction requested by tbe appellant should have been granted.

Tbe judgment of tbe court below therefore will be reversed, and judgment entered here for appellant.

Reversed and judgment for appellant.