Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Bowling

202 A.2d 783, 1964 D.C. App. LEXIS 266
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 31, 1964
Docket3455
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 202 A.2d 783 (Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Bowling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Bowling, 202 A.2d 783, 1964 D.C. App. LEXIS 266 (D.C. 1964).

Opinion

HOOD, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for personal injuries suffered by appellee when she slipped and fell at the entrance of one of appellant’s stores. She claimed that her fall was due to an unusual and unnecessarily large accumulation of slush and water on the metal strip in the entrance-way.

Appellant first contends that the evidence did not justify a finding of negligence on its part. We do not agree. A storekeeper is not an insurer of its customers but does owe them the duty of using reasonable care for their safety. The evidence here presented a question for the jury whether under the circumstances appellant had failed in that duty.

Appellant also contends that the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence medical bills incurred by appellee in the absence of testimony, other than hers, that those bills were reasonable and necessary. In Nunan v. Timberlake, 66 App.D.C. 150, 153, 85 F.2d 407, 410 (1936), it was said:

“We think the better view is that in a suit in tort for personal injury the plaintiff makes a prima facie case by proving the professional services rendered and the amount of the bill paid or incurred.”

Appellant argues that this rule applies to bills incurred immediately following the injury and that certain of the bills here covered services rendered a considerable length of time after the injury. We think the admission of the bills, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, was within the discretion of the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Green v. United States Postal Service
589 F. Supp. 2d 58 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Structural Preservation Systems, Inc. v. Petty
927 A.2d 1069 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
Auxier v. Kraisel
466 A.2d 416 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1983)
Walters v. Littleton
290 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1982)
Montgomery v. Dennis
411 A.2d 61 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1980)
Reese v. Crosby
280 A.2d 526 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1971)
Crowe v. Overland Hauling, Inc.
245 So. 2d 654 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Napier v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
215 A.2d 479 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.2d 783, 1964 D.C. App. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giant-food-stores-inc-v-bowling-dc-1964.