Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
Thе defendant, now appellee, conducts a department store in Louisville and maintains on the basement floor a check room or counter for use of its patrons.
About three o’clock in the afternoon of July 29, 1919, plaintiff went to this check room, for her grip and in wаlking back to the stairway fell and received serious if not permanent injuries. Jus-t a few minutes befоre this the floor of the b-asement had been covered about an inch deep with water as a result of an unusual rain storm. It is conceded by counsel for plaintiff that the flooding of thе floor was not caused by any negligence upon the part of defendant, but it is alleged thаt aa a result thereof the floor of the basement was wet, slick and “in an unsafe and dangеrous condition for persos to walk upon and over and this condition was known to the
These allegations of the petition were denied by the answer and uрon a trial at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony the court gave a peremptory instruction in favor of the defendant. Prom the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has prоsecuted this appeal.
The evidence of plaintiff shows that she was upon the premises by invitation of the defendant and as a consequence the defendant owed her thе duty of using reasonable or ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe cоndition but was not an insurer of her safety. Anderson and Nelson Distilleries Co. v. Hair,
The evidence shows that immediately upon the flooding of the floor and before plaintiff entered the basement some planks were taken up at one end of same to allow the water to run through аnd janitors were put to work mopping up the floor where' it was wet; that the basement was well lighted-; that there were no barriers erected to prevent plaintiff from going on the floоr and that no one warned or notified her not to do so. Plaintiff testified that she was caused tо slip and fall by the wet or damp condition of the floor. Upon cross-examination she was asked and answered the following questions:
"Q. You say when you came down the steps you found the room well lighted? A. It was well lighted, yes. -Q. The floor was perfectly level and in good condition аs far as you could see ? A. As far as I could see. Q. What was there on the floor that could cause anybody to slip? A. From where they had been mopping. Q. That is all? A. That is all I could see. Q. Just а little dampness on the floor where they had just finished mopping, evidently? A. It was water, from the cоndition of my clothes. Q. Did you notice this dampness as you walked toward the counter for your griр? A. No, sir; not until I stood there waiting for my grip; I noticed them mopping just beyond the check room> past me. Q.*559 Then yon noticed the floor all around you was slightly moist ? A. Yes. Q. And that it was in that condition between the check counter and the steps that you were going to? A. Yes. Q. So when you walked across that floor you knew it was moist? A. Yes.”
Upon this testimony it is plain that the plaintiff while she was waiting at the counter for her grip saw the porters mopping up the floor and that the floor was moist between the check counter and the steps. Hence she knew of -the very condition which she claims rendered the floor Unsafe, and her accident was not the result of defendant’s failure to give her notice or warning, even if it be conceded that ordinary care required notice that an ordinary wood floor in a well lighted room was moist or damp, which is at leаst doubtful. See American Tobacco Company v. Adams,
Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.