*1 CO., et al. DRUG v. WALGREEN ERICKSON (232 210.) June P. 2d Decided 1951. 7444. No. *2 proprietors, injury S., Negligence, 228. Store See 65 C. J. sec. creating liability Jur., Negligence, customer as on. 38 Am. secs. seq.; et 162 A. L. E. 949. Moreton, Christensen, City, Christensen & Salt Lake appellants. for
Rawlings, Black, Wallace, Black, Roberts & Salt Lake City, respondent. for
WOLFE, Chief Justice. against Walgreen Drug respondent
Action Company Salisbury Company and the Investment to re- damages personal injuries cover for her when sustained slipped entranceway she and fell on the terrazzo floor of an building in a constructed and owned the Investment Company leased, part, by Drug Company. it to the $8,000 In the court below returned a verdict of against Drug Company but no found cause action against Drug Company. Company, the Investment The appellant, prosecutes hereinafter referred to as the this appeal, relying principally upon the contention that there finding negligence is no evidence to sustain a on its part. appellant operates drug store on the southeast
corner of Main and Second South Streets downtown Salt City, entranceway Lake Utah. The respondent fell is at corner of northwest the build- ing revolving and consists of a door in the center with an ordinary swinging door each side thereof. The doors are recessed from the sidewalk and between them and the slab, slightly sloping sidewalk is a terrazzo toward the away building shape street and join- from the in a fan ing eight approximately the sidewalk to nine feet from the canopy entranceway. doors. A covers raining At time of the accident it was and the streets respondent approached were wet. appellant’s As the entering store with the purpose intention therein making purchase, people standing she noticed several canopy. stepping under shelter of the After from the cement sidewalk onto the terrazzo floor walking steps ordinary gait, four or five at an she right-hand open swinging reached out to door when her *3 right slipped fell, foot on the terrazzo surface and she sustaining right leg. a fracture of the femur of her wet, apparently terrazzo surface was water tracked entering by persons in from the street store. the The re- spondent testified that she noticed the that floor of the entranceway wearing was wet before she fell. She was approximately shoes with Cuban leather heels one and one- high. half inches complaint respondent alleged (1)
In her the that the In- negligent Company vestment in in the manner which it constructed and floor in it maintained the terrazzo that very slippery wet, (2) became when and that the propensities knew or should have known of the of the floor failing to when wet and was in become using entranceway of the to warn customers the hazard by covering or to condition the involved obviate the with mats or use of other means. Under the floor the Company appellant, the lease between the Investment and obligated former, lessor, all as to make exterior the including building, repairs repairs to structural and building. to and entrances to the sidewalk contention principal stated the appellant’s heretofore As competent evidence no upon appeal that there is this is negligence finding in the record to sustain alleged by respondent particulars in the its a careful examination above. After set out fail. It must this contention are convinced that record we briefly the evidence. necessary summarize thus becomes Raymond Ashton, the associate architect J. One building specifications for the building, testified that finishing in spread in coat required carborundum footing grit give form a secure floor to terrazzo recently unnecessary; ex that he make the use of mats grit carborundum slab and found the amined the terrazzo of an slope of present; plans for a that called l/16th entranceway; in floor of the inch to the foot slope im- was almost sloped in two directions but floor entranceway; unusually for an preceptible flat employed in the type opinion the of construction that in his pro type that his question the safest employ. able to fession had been degree physical university professor, doctor’s A with a engaged trial a surface chemistry, at time of the George Navy, R. sponsored by one chemistry project experiments performed certain Hill, had testified that he city question side- and also on the terrazzo floor they adjoining revealed that both and that walk the same co-efficient sidewalk had terrazzo and the lubricant so friction; acts as a water on a surface to slide it would continue to slide if a foot started *4 although dry; there easily that were the surface more than irregularities in the surface quite a number were touch, al- apparent to the which were terrazzo slab worn,” had not though “fairly the carborundum it was opinion a safe surface off; the floor was in his worn years terrazzo had in last few upon; and that walk to entranceways either extensively than in more used been asphalt. marble, tile, or cement Caffall, contractor, One Frank a tile and terrazzo testi- fying plaintiff, on behalf of the stated that he had examined question the terrazzo in slab but because it was constructed green cement, of black marble and it was difficult to tell any aggregate it, although non-slip whether there though when he slid his foot over the surface it felt as there none; ground were that the surface of the terrazzo had been “quite wet; smooth slippery” and was when that even though abrasive, is constructed with non-skid terrazzo. through effective; constant wear the abrasive comes less opinion his more terrazzo surface when wet is commonly than the wet surface of other materials ground entranceways used in store because terrazzo is smoother. testimony
There was also adduced that about half of the entranceways along to the Main stores business houses Temple Street from South Street to Fourth South Street City, blocks, Salt Lake were distance of four construct- ; entranceways ed of terrazzo that most of were un- these doors; inclosed appellant’s, like the but that a few had storm storekeepers placed some of the in their entrance- mats ways had, times, when appellant it stormed and that the at placed leading mats over the center of the terrazzo slab directly revolving However, into the door. no there was protecting evidence that mats had been used for the sections entranceway leading swinging to the on each doors revolving side of the door. duty respondent by owed to the
is stated Section 343 of the American Law Insti tute’s Restatement of the Law of Torts as follows: subject possessor liability bodily “A of land is harm caused if, business visitors a natural or artificial condition thereon only if, but he knows, “(a) the exercise of reasonable care could discover which, him, the condition if involving known to he should realize as them, and, an risk unreasonable *5 they “(b) will discover the condition has no reason to believe therein, the risk involved or realize “(c) upon permits enter invites or them to or remain the land with- exercising reasonable care out reasonably
“(i) safe, to make the condition adequate “(ii) give warning to enable them avoid the * * *” harm evidence, From all of jury we think a could reason- ably appellant conclude that the knew or should have known propensities of its terrazzo to become slippery when wet and should have realized that because propensities of those it created an unreasonable risk to business slippery visitors who would not discover the con- dition and realize the risk involved therein. It is true that respondent many had crossed the terrazzo times slab prior accident; particular that on this occasion she person knew the terrazzo floor was wet and as a reasonable possibility slip- should have realized the increased of her ping. according Caffall, Yet to Mr. the terrazzo slab was “quite slippery” though when wet and felt as did not any being abrasive; contain the slab smooth and terrazzo was more when wet than commonly the wet surface other used in en- materials tranceways. agreed Mr. Hill had the slab sustained matters, cannot, considerable wear. As to these we aas charge law, knowing. respondent matter of While appears initially the floor to have been constructed so as to reasonably travel, be safe for could conclude that had, wear, the surface from continual worn smooth and the footing. abrasive become less effective to secure occurring any While there is no evidence of incident put would have on notice that wet, terrazzo was when such evidence is neces- sary liability appellant. to establish The. building possession latter inwas the actual and had duty in order that to search out defects the premises they reasonably presence safe for the of business visitors. *6 slipping
This is not the of a on some case business visitor foreign oil, carelessly substance such- had been as which spilled only prior on the floor a time to the accident. short In such cases it is often held matter of law that the as a storekeeper knowledge charged had no could he be nor knowledge presence foreign the which of substance jury caused the fall. But in the could find instant case the through that constant wear had over a the terrazzo slab period being very smooth, resulting of time become it slippery Although no when wet. evidence that there was falling terrazzo, slab, complained one else had may appellant slippery it have been so when wet that the should have known of that condition and realized that subjected It is business visitors to an unreasonable risk. true that the terrazzo from water tracked slab became wet entering store, by persons in from street the and that the. appellant probably the had no control over this element and dry. kept with no amount of effort could have the surface large im- But the terrazzo surface not that it was was so footing, practicable or to to cover it with a mat to secure post sign advising of the hazard. business visitors urges jury appellant that verdict rendered the the contrary in that the is inconsistent and to the instructions Company jury not found in effect that the Investment was negligent in of the terrazzo its construction or maintenance appellant entranceway, but found that the nevertheless failing give warning condition to taking prere- steps condition. in not to obviate the As negligent, finding quisite it was the to a necessary jury the argues to find that it was negligent. Company Investment Company duty upon the court the Investment As to the charged jury that: “* * * Salisbury Company en- Investment [appellant’s] [respondent]
tranceway store where fell and had entranceway change and material right the exclusive constructed; you find from a entranceway and if said entranceway con- was not that said preponderance the evidence reasonably wet in that when safe manner in a or maintained structed reasonably slick, slippery, safe entranceway became Company Salisbury knew or in Investment upon, that the walk condition, known said care should have reasonable the exercise of * *” * negligent; Salisbury Company was Investment
then duty appellant, upon ivas respect to With instructed that: * * “* duty appellant] reasonable to exercise it was the of [the reasonably use entranceway keep safe for to its care to of its regard you you customers; that if in this are instructed entranceway preponderance the evidence that the shall find from a reasonably in that the floor of the had was not safe and slick and [the become wet from rain water. appellant] have or in the exercise of reasonable care should knew *7 condition, care to
known of said remedy and failed to exercise reasonable reasonably entranceway safe said condition and make said signs customers, warning for the use of of its means of to advise by covering the slick condition or entrance with the terrazzo rubber prevent slipping, appellant] mats or other substances to then [the' * *” * negligent; Clearly, exonerating negli the verdict the builder from gence finding culpable inherently the lessee in is contrary may consistent jury nor to the instructions. The entranceway have concluded that the was neither negligently constructed nor maintained the In Company, vestment but due care dictated that that entranceway appellant employ when the became wet the existing give slippery means to eliminate the condition or warning may possibility thereof. Another is that the (1) have concluded that the terrazzo floor while constructed manner, through in a safe wear had worn continuous smooth, thereby creating an unreasonable risk to business using wet, the when it became but visitors knowledge (2) Company had no of the that the Investment charged nor condition could it such being knowledge; (3) that the actual premises, have either knew should possession of the wet, of the terrazzo when condition known of busi- unreasonable risk to that it constituted an realized warning given them visitors, either and should have ness steps condition. to obviate the thereof or taken jury’s regard possible for the basis In to this latter Shartenburg’s Inc., I.R. verdict, v. the case of Cardall brought 12, enlightening. There the 31 A. is by her damages injuries sustained an action to recover of a floor wet terrazzo slipped and fell on the when she treating court, The trial in the defendant’s store. vestibule alleging solely the defend that plaintiff’s complaint as floor, directed negligent of the construction its ant was in. the evidence because defendant verdict favor according to floor had been revealed that Supreme Court Upon appeal, established standards. plaintiff’s case explained were the that of Rhode Island construction, the direction solely upon based doubtedlessly be would of the defendant a verdict favor if the defend was no evidence because there correct care, known it would have employed due ant had constructed, would have being properly was not floor court, But, properly constructed. stated it had floor, allege improper construction plaintiff did not construction “by of the manner reason but that it,” use of the slope of reason floor and dangerous the defend extremely when wet as vestibule known, care that due have well knew or should ant safety per employ to insure means dictated that there using The court declared the vestibule. sons *8 neg found could have which a was evidence particular al in the the defendant ligence of on the consequently reversed the case leged by plaintiff and a new trial. for appel assignment is made of error further
One testimony allow in evidence to court refused The trial lant. 40 4,000 5,000 persons approximately to entered every day during appellant’s but that fall, year period prior respondent’s to the
fifteen single management complaint re- had never received a or anyone In port slipping on the terrazzo slab. exclud- about ing testimony, we conclude that lower court this erred. of
Evidence the absence occurring of prior accidents complained to the may accident not be admissible to establish that an unsafe condition did not exist at the time question. of the accident in That matter we need not clearly decide here. But such evidence is admissible prove possessor that a knowledge of land had no charged nor could knowledge he be that an unsafe existed, particluarly condition when the unsafe condition complained of is latent. In the appellant instant case the only can if be liable subjected terrazzo floor when wet business an visitors to appellant unreasonable risk and the either knew or the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered that such a condition existed. Evidence that thousands of business through visitors had walked entranceway in all kinds weather that none of them complained appellant had ever to the slipping slab, terrazzo while not question, conclusive on the as here pointed out, probative tofore upon does have value question whether knew should have known existence an unreasonable risk to customers entering leaving the store. La, Natatorium,
In Sistrunk v. Audubon App., Park 667, brought against So. an action was an amusement company injuries boy for sustained who fell from a swimming pool. slide at Evidence that hundreds of other persons injury used slide without held admissible showing operators purpose for the that the of the slide failing guard anticipate against were not Campion Similarly, Chicago such an accident. Land v. scape Co., App. 225, 295 Ill. E. 2d N. in an action golf injuries player eye by struck a ball
41 golf due manner in which claimed to have been to the out, laid that there had been no other course was evidence showing purpose of was admissible for the lack accidents danger knowledge part on of the defendant. question A. L. cited on this at 128 R. 606. See the cases testimony prop To her contention such sustain was by court, erly rejected respondent the trial on relies Railway Company, Barlow Salt & the case of v. Lake Utah 312, 665. In 57 Utah P. that case the injured proffered on March 1918. The testi mony injured alighting passenger that no rejection testimony date. cars after that The of that ruling presents principle a different than the under consid eration in this case. ac Evidence of the non-occurrence of subsequent complained cidents to the accident of is knowledge material as it does not tend to establish lack of of a defendant at the time of the accident question. questioned admissible,
In order make the evidence necessary appellant similarity was not that the establish proffered testimony conditions. The period covered a years of fifteen and this was of sufficient duration days stormy to include when weather was as well as days when the weather was clear. On some might conditions be worse than those encountered respondent days might and on other conditions be more favorable.
It is true that there is previous evidence that on some storming, occasions when it was a rubber mat had been placed out over the terrazzo slab. How- ever, placed the mat was revolving front of the door only and did not cover the entire surface of the entrance- way. Particularly, it did portion not cover the en- tranceway in front of the doors either side of re- volving portion door. This is traversed public as well portion as the revolving front of the door, and it was respondent here that the fell. judgment below reversed and the case is re- is *10 appellant. a new to the
manded for trial. Costs awarded McDONOUGH, JJ., WADE and concur.
CROCKETT, J., participating.
LATIMER, (concurring dissenting Justice in and part). in against
Plaintiff commenced action the defendants this Walgreen Drug Company Salisbury Comp- and Investment any damages personal injuries to recover for certain slipped sustained her when she and fell the entrance- way building owned and constructed the investment company drug company. and leased to the was The cause tried the court below and a rendered verdict plaintiff against drug favor company of the against company plaintiff. favor the investment drug The company appeals principally relies upon finding contention that there is no evidence to sustain negligent. it was respondent sub- favorably are to most The facts stated Comp- Salisbury Investment stantially The defendant these: of Sec- corner building southeast any constructed City, Part Utah. in Salt Lake Main Streets ond South Walgreen defendant building to was leased of this the landlord provided that Drug Company. The lease by the fault repairs not caused exterior make all should and entrances repair the sidewalks should tenant and building was so premises. The portion of the the leased drug store oné of the entrances constructed north-westerly in a Streets and Second South Main faced doors, a re- three consisted entrance This direction. swinging ordinary door an volving center with in the door so as to be set recessed entrance was each side. was a hori- and there show windows front from the back portion. The canopy recessed which covered zontal doorways of material approach to the known as sloped slightly terrazzo and was laid so that it away building shape joined in a fan approximately eight sidewalk to nine feet from the re- volving slope away door. The amount of from the door through pass one-eighth intended to an inch to the foot. September 25,
On 1948, plaintiff ap- left her at home beginning 2:30 m. proximately at which time it p. rain. She arrived at Second South and Main Streets at approximately p. 3:00 m. The streets were wet and it was raining.
still plaintiff approached As defendant’s store she noted people standing there were several under the shelter canopy. stepped She from the cement walk onto the terrazzo floor entranceway, steps walked four or five ordinary at an gait, and open as she reached out to *11 swinging south right her door slipped foot on the surface causing terrazzo and injuries. she fell her severe The terrazzo was wet rain, from the and was smooth and slick. wearing Plaintiff was shoes heels, with “Cuban” leather approximately one and high. one-half inches building specifica-
At was the the time the required tions for that abrasive terrazzo an be mixed with product the used make the other materials to finished and specifications appear complied the to have been with. place terrazzo at the time of the accident was examined and, according him, a tile contractor to it was difficult to tell whether there was non-skid material near the sur- face, but the associate architect testified that the abrasive present. explained material was The contractor further very qualities and that the surface felt smooth the abrasive originally placed in article could have been worn smooth portion entranceway sloped wear. The terrazzo of slightly away building, slight from the but this was so that practically all witnesses indicated it was horizontal. The dry was more when wet terrazzo than when and during placed times inclement weather the defendant at had leading entranceway directly mats over the into the re- mats volving However, evidence that there was no door. protecting of entrance' the sections been used had leading doors. to the side friction of to co-efficient of was evidence as
There contractors, qual- by building terrazzo, its abrasive its use similarly compared used and to materials ities as other de- This evidence is not water its surfaces. effect of relevancy principal its tailed for the reason building this and proper construction establish the company. the investment in favor of issue was resolved as However, will be referred to later some of the evidence Drug Walgreen defendant the assertion bears on knowledge Company had its should have entering dangerous unsafe for invitees and when wet leaving store. judge charge permitted jury to con- his The trial against ground negligence the investment sider one company, namely, improper the entrance- construction drug grounds negligence against comp- way; two any, namely, failure to warn failure to cover covering protective such a mat. The as terrazzo with a question improper eliminated verdict of the questions only with the as to and so I deal construction drug company was whether or not the defendant failing that the surface of the terrazzo warn not reasonable care slippery when wet whether or drug company place approach required a mat on the to the doors. *12 drug opinion company that defendant
I am of the failing plaintiff dangerous negligent in a to warn was not the entrance to the She was familiar with condition. times, many good over it both weather and had crossed on the surface of the She knew that moisture and bad. rendered both more and the entrance sidewalk warning walking A over a slick surface. knew she was sign given more information than she not have her could already possessed. The record does not indicate that there danger was a latent defect or hidden or that defendant drug knowledge company had that because of wear and tear the surface of the worn terrazzo was so smooth as dangerous. contrary, appear to be On the it would that the company reasonably could have believed the entrance- way w,as possible in the safest manner and that ordinarily there were no other hazards than present those rainy day. plaintiff encountered on a Both and defendant charged knowledge cement, are with marble or com- position surfaces become water when covered with and both know that moisture on the surface of the entrance- way walking persons passage- increase the hazards way. drug known, company Had the or if it could be charged knowledge, product that an inferior had been used, subjected that the materials used customers to extra- risks, ordinary or that wear and tear on the surface of the away terrazzo had worn the abrasive substance and so existed, slickened the surface that an unsafe condition then warning might have been called for. But instance this product proper record shows a standard con- struction. A tile contractor who made an examination of request the surface of the terrazzo at the was unable to determine whether abrasive material was present testify surface. He did not that abrasive qualities missing were and other witnesses claimed that If, upon inspection,, carborundum was evident. a close characteristics; it could not be determined abrasive away, drug had worn suspect there is no reason to company would have known that the terrazzo had become any unfit for use. The record barren of is evidence or of any might charged drug incident which company have qualities with notice that the abrasive of the terrazzo were Moreover, sub-standard. there was no affirmative act on company which contributed to the fall. No foreign substance was on the floor and no act of either slippery. defendant caused the terrazzo to be analysis, In the final the accident was caused combination ele- *13 46 liability to the affix do not which circumstances and
ments drug accidents company. are some There defendant always prevent, will as individuals can amount of care no always will surfaces, and surfaces slip on slick during inclement weather. present drug company was question whether the The entranceway presents more placing over the in mats business evidence some problem. There was difficult City entrances who have Lake houses Salt during Like- weather. inclement mats a like material use drug company on cer- has wise, there is evidence covering center a mat for tain occasions used revolving leading door. to the entrance passed different on been with similar facts have Cases and I refer to reached. conclusions courts and different arguments and present for quote two which duty against is a proposition that there protective cover surfaces of a store owner to mats. 97, Shartenberg’s Inc., R. I. 69 of Cardall V.
In the case passed 12, Island Supreme of Rhode A. 2d Court 31 question. happened the follow accident under The plaintiff slipped fell on Febru ing circumstances: The department leaving 19, 1940, ary defendant’s she was as by way The vestibules were of one of two vestibules. place open paved had been with terrazzo which year. slope amounted than of the vestibule less one slight 4 slope inches sideways.' 101/2 feet in Plaintiff had been in the store direction of travel many floor the fact that times and was familiar with day sloping. of the accident vestibule On freezing point temperature just and at above it was wet time the vestibule walked across concerning percentage testimony slippery. There claiming terrazzo, witness one of abrasive material *14 per 5 was as little as 4 or cent while other witnesses per 40 cent. it reached 30 to claimed against judge plaintiff directed a verdict the The trial grounds upon the the showed the floor of evidence according properly to estab- the vestibule was practice. Supreme of Rhode Island re- lished The Court casting light upon grounds, but the one on versed several sufficiency with the of the evidence to this decision deals submitting negligence justify jury. the to the Mr. issue of Court, Moss, speaking Supreme for the stated: Justice “Therefore and of facts above stated and shown testi- because mony, opinion evidence, we are of the was there and reasonable ques- plaintiff, inferences therefrom favorable to the which raised very tions the to determine whether there was little abrasive plaintiff material at the surface of the vestibule floor on the fell; slipped slope and whether because of this fact and the double would, protection provided, in that floor it if no then extra was dangerously slippery wet, days snowy, slushy on business or wea- ther, upon it; on account of the water that would be and also whether having, accident, defendant was in not at the time protection a rubber mat or place other effective on this floor at the plaintiff slipped where the being so, upon and fell. This the evidence considered, plaintiff’s eighth exception thus to the direction justice the trial of a verdict for the defendant should be sustained.” Supreme The Missouri, Court of the case Fletcher v. Mehornay North Co., Furniture 607, 359 Mo. 222 S. W. 789, 794, 2d opposite reached an conclusion on a similar set of facts. In plaintiff slipped walking that case as she was in front of defendant’s store. The sidewalk in front of that institution was constructed plaintiff of terrazzo which al leged slanted, highly was polished Plaintiff slippery. approximately fell at 9 m., 25, 1946, o’clock a. November at a time when the weather cold and was the sidewalk and streets were fallen, wet. Some snow had but at the time of melted, leaving the accident it had the surface of the ter slippery. razzo wet wearing Plaintiff was heels Cuban height. of about testimony two inches in The usual concern ing presence presence lack of abrasive materials case, witnesses, testified in this as produced
was present when a lubricant acts as that moisture the fact slippery and hazardous. same and renders terrazzo in 9 feet or inches slope in that case percentage of 2% opinion of Commission foot. The an inch to 5/18th Court, and it included Supreme adopted other referred law as following statement cases: Missouri 1164, 2d Shops, W. Mo. 193 S. National V. Shirt Schmoll “In entrance to the defendant’s terrazzo plaintiff fell on was wet and slick as the terrazzo injured. case In that were brass in that case case; in the terrazzo present embedded It was held wet and slick. were these letters and 2d, said, loc. ruling court 193 S. W. the case the In not recover. could flooring commonly used aas terrazzo is shows ‘The evidence cit. 607: *15 joints providing expansion stores, of the use brass and of lobbies flooring; it has of terrazzo construction in the common is likewise joints) (with expansion aas that terrazzo brass considered not been inherently dangerous; flooring is not to be held and defendant is expansion negligent merely terrazzo with brass the use of because of supra, Small, lobby joints floor. Cameron v. in the construction Sup., is the evidence that 2d 565. It also seen from 182 S. W. Mo. indicating designs lettering or a trade in embedded use of brass mark, is not uncommon in the terrazzo or or a name of name stores; however, brass smooth of entrance lobbies of becomes floors Yet, and, so, highly polished wear, when is when wet. subjected necessarily liability may not be because defendant though plaintiff’s so fall was oc- brass used was dangerously slippery condition the brass. There casioned of dangers liability injuries for is of defendant from that are no ob- ”
vious, plaintiff or as well known to as to defendant.’ might distinguished It be that the case at bar could be from the Rhode Island of case because the difference in the year. slope or the time of the The defen- dants in this were not faced with case of dan- possibility ger icy entranceway. an or inclined sharply If the undistinguishable, are I cases then follow the prefer to prin- suggested by ciples the Missouri Court. company
There evidence that on occasions is some approach which portion used center had mats suggested revolving led to the door. If mats were located as portion they the witnesses not have covered would reasonably might However, by plaintiff. it be traversed might argued have they place that had been in Granting revolving this possibil- chosen the door entrance. ity, con- accepting in some entrances the evidence that during structed of have used mats terrazzo other merchants weather, to use opinion adverse I that the failure am the lack due mats this instance cannot be considered as care. might mat
There to use a are cases where the failure excessively, sloped negligence. approach If be considered an not knew did if were which a store owner materials used people any substance, if had contain non-skid numerous charged slipped storekeeper with knowl- so that the could be edge appropriate for the was not the material used dangerous, if purpose or other un- and therefore intended present passage-way made the usual situations were covered, might dangerous there be then when was liability. storekeeper’s jury question as to the present in this case. are None of the assumed conditions drug liable Accordingly, can be held if the company city storekeeper every can a mat then failure use entranceways covering charged duty with charged being possibility sidewalks or suffer the *16 walking persons It must thereon. care towards lack due not inside here involved was be remembered that area might prevented have storekeeper the store where the only a limited becoming slippery have from and would floor cover, of the store space fall on the outside but the impracticable and protection from the where elements area would be where the limitation size abutting length the store. width and sidewalk being mats observed respondent to have Because claims appellant with not time not brand used at some other does having might used due care. It at be that other times the placing protect reasons for patrons the mats was to slipping might on ice or snow which have blanketed the terrazzo. were not fixed Dates as to when the witnesses that, mats were used. Aside from such a establish penalizing rule of law storekeeper would have the effect of a exercising Knowing moisture, more than due care. tendency or slippery, snow ice have a to make surface precaution safety some merchants take extra for the or using patrons by convenience of their mats. Failure to precautions negli- maintain those extra at all times is not gence duty storekeeper is not measured taking failing every precaution his to take conceivable prevent injuries to his invitees. The most he can charged injury tois use reasonable care to avoid their drug company every and this record establishes that the met imposed storekeeper. reasonable standard JOHNSON et ux. v. et al. HUGHES BURNINGHAM et ux. v. al. HUGHES et 6, (232 362.) Nos. 7545. Decided June 1951. P. 2d