Did thе court below commit error in granting the defendant’s motiоn for judgment as of nonsuit ? We do not think so.
An innkeeper is not an insurer of the personal safety of his guests. He is only requirеd to exercise due care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give his guеsts or invitees warning of any hidden peril.
Schwingle v. Kellenberger,
The appellant is relying on the rule of liability stated in
Anderson v. Amusement Co.,
In the instant case the plaintiff alleges there was a heavy coat of' wаx on the floor where she fell, which had been applied uniformly and smoothly over the entire floor of the vеstibule or entrance to the elevators. At the trial, however, she offered no evidence to show what the substance was on the floor or what caused her to fall. Once in her testimony she did state that after she fell shе looked around to see what happened аnd saw what looked like a “deep furrow” from where hеr left heel had struck the marble, but at other times she refеrred to the mark on the floor as “the skid mark.” There is no еvidence to the effect that any unusual material had been used in cleaning or polishing the floor or that suсh material had been applied in an impropеr, unusual or negligent manner. In fact, plaintiff offered no evidence tending to show that any substance had been рlaced on the floor except as it may be inferred from her testimony as to the “deep furrow” or “skid mark.” On thе other hand, she testified that the marble and composition floor in the vestibule where she fell, was no different in its appearance than at other times, in so far as she could see.
The fact that a floor is waxed dоes not constitute evidence of negligence. Nor does the mere fact that one slips and falls on a floor constitute evidence of negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur
does not apply to injuries
*732
rеsulting from slipping or falling on a waxed or oiled floor.
Parker v. Tea Co., supra.
In order to recover for an injury, resulting from a fall on sucli а floor, it is necessary to show “defective or negligеnt construction or maintenance” and “express or implied notice of such defects.”
Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, supra; Pratt v. Tea Co.,
It seems to be thе general rule that an action will not be sustained agаinst the owner or lessee of a building, founded solely upоn the fact that a patron or invitee was injured by slipрing on a waxed or polished floor, where the floor had been waxed or polished in the usual and customаry manner and with material in general use for that purpose.
Brown v. Davenport Holding Co.,
The evidence adduced in the trial below, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient to justify its submission to the jury.
The ruling of the court below is
Affirmed.