After the plaintiff’s evidence is taken as true, all reasonable inferences favorable to him are drawn therefrom and the whole is viewed in the light most favorable to him, it still falls short of being sufficient to show a cause of action in his favor against the defendant. The judgment of nonsuit was, therefore, proper.
Assuming, as we must upon this motion, that the plaintiff was invited by the defendant to go into the portion of the garage where the accident occurred, the defendant did not thereby become an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety while there.
Aaser v. Charlotte,
The proprietor of a business establishment must use reasonable care to keep his premises, including aisles and walkways, safe for use by customers invited to use them.
Aaser v. Charlotte, supra; Harrison v. Williams,
What constitutes reasonable care depends upon the nature of the business and the normal use in such business establishments of like areas. See:
Pierce v. Murnick,
The plaintiff’s evidence fails to suggest any action by the defendant or his employees creating a hazard which one walking in the work space of a repair garage should not reasonably expect and watch for. It also shows that the plaintiff, an experienced garage worker, failed to look before he stepped where he should have anticipated some obstruction was likely. Had he done so he would have seen the “stiff-knee” in the well-lighted space. The invitee must *753 also use reasonable care, commensurate with the normal activities of the type of establishment whose invitation he accepts.
Affirmed.
