*1 question accident how the considerable There was prove attempted to and Plaintiffs averred occurred. plaintiff stopped minor it reached the bus that permit the bus, them enter if to and the as others, warning negligently forward, moved and then without testimony point was on this Yet the then backward. deny conflicting. only that he did the driver Not did plaintiffs’ the bus testified own witness but so, claimed rather than moved forward, backward, testimony permit plaintiffs. belief Their also would minor turned that of the bus were so wheels plaintiff if the did could not been struck bus to the since the wheels were turned backward, move right. of the wit- one defendant’s addition, driver’s in seated and as nesses testified she was bus, past approached minor “come out crowd put . . . closer to the and . . . her on the bus bus; hands stop believability herself.” of all of the so as The jury. witnesses was jury finding plaintiffs was warranted negligence in

had not established defendant. A re- testimony of all of view convinces us cannot verdict be disturbed. trial full and fairly presented complete, all of the issues were to the jury charge, under an unassailable and we find no refusing abuse of the court’s discretion a new trial. Judgment affirmed. Appellant, Percy Company. v. A. Brown

Hon, *2 1954. Before November

Argued J., C. Stern, Musmanno Ar- Chidsev, Stearne, Jones, Bell, JJ. nold,

196

Albert E. with him Thomas G. Moore and Aston, E. Thomas for appellants. Brislin, Robert J. with him B. Ritchie and Doran, George d Reynolds, Reynolds Doran, appellee.

Opinion Per January 1955: Curiam, of the court judgment refusing below to remove a compulsory nonsuit is affirmed on the opinion Aponick. Judge

Dissenting Opinion bt Mr. Musmanno: Justice On Mrs. S. 27, 1951, Mary years Hon, October of the de- age, entered business establishment fendant which consisted of a serve-yourself market, a restaurant and a cafeteria. of one of She took hold the basket are about feet go-carts (which Sy2 high), circulated the aisles of attractive through commodities, paid filled her basket meats and groceries, with for her left her purchases at the cashier’s desk. She were step-father with her husband and who packages then for the rest room on the with started her, and. floor. to reach the conduct- stairway second order to the rest she had to an aisle pass through ing room, con- by on one the four doors side, which was formed, the street other and, side, with necting five thick. The layers basket width go-carts row of *6 swung of 4 feet. of doors out- aisle was Two the wardly they and as the “Out” doors. were known Two swung inwardly they “In” and were known as the passed way her doors. On to the rest Mrs. Hon room, by the “In” as “Out” and the But she doors doors. leaving “In” incom- behind her the last an door, pushed ing striking open, on the customer Mrs. Hon right leg thigh force she and with such that was thrown consequence in- to the suffered floor as a serious juries. these in the Trial

After facts were related Court, Judge compulsory against her which entered a nonsuit appeal An the Court en banc later lift. to refused Majority has ac- this Court followed. The of this Court cepted meager Opinion as the of Court below its the commenting it I to it so will refer as own that Opinion. Majority the plaintiff Majority to make the failed that states negligence prima but also that of adds a facie case

out part any negligence of the defend- if there was plaintiff of con- herself convicted the “female ant, negligence.” tributory negligence of the defendant

It seems to me that the indisputable. palpable We is and almost obvious, store the 4 feet, of aisle was have noted the width when 32" wide and, 48 “In” doors were inches. The is, penetrated they opening building, into the into the of 28 inches. either the store a distance of Thus hinged opened its to the full arc, “In” extent doors 28 reduced thus inches, the of the aisle was width passage. leaving only for the the 20 inches view most adults are 20 inches or more wide, fact that conclusion is reached the store own- mathematical exist which meant that each a condition to ers allowed opening with of an “In” door coincided time the passing in the would of a customer customer aisle, tight caught

either or be a be struck door squeeze. Majority argues, if the store however, tight squeeze had to

owners knew this in that been know it also because she had a customer years. de- for some I fail to see how this fact store prives right be knocked down. Store her of people urge so their houses owners who into business they may goods profit to the be sold at invitors saving required by due care in are to exercise law Although unnecessary Mrs. harm. the invitees from many record Hon had entered the store times, always *7 does not show that the aisle was as narrow day may it on the of the accident. It be that was day particular go-carts that the basket were crowded they usually than were. That the closer to the doors always the width of the aisle was not same is evident photo- looking plaintiff, at from the fact that the the graph baskets introduced at the said that the trial, position picture they not in the same were that were day mishap. of the way on her The fact that the was to passageway any lane room did not make the less a rest through It aisle of travel. was this also that customers the cafeteria. reached Majority, seeks to make a distinction however, shopping and one who

between a customer who is still suggesting completed shoppingj his thus has degree persons greater of care owes a to store-owner spending money than it who are still does to those who already emptied pockets their into the coffers so I- do not believe that the is the establishment. law mercenarily A a cus harsh or so minded. customer is long until he leaves the for he re tomer as store, always mains under the roof of the store there is spend possibility that he will another five or ten-dollar ingeniously dis been has some article which bill for eye played that as at the last moment. Be his to catch say arbitrary judgment only may, could an already and that left the store had Mrs. Hon required continue under the law to was store-owner reasonably premises condi in a safe maintain the purpose Hon for was which Mrs. invited tion for the store.* to visit particular “In” knew that store-owners opened opened (and it hun

door involved here, day), narrowed became a wall which dreds of times a Tire In Nettis v. of the aisle inches. Gen. the width “All the author 317 Pa. Court said: 204, Co., upon agree the owner of it is incumbent ities persons upon ex premises come invitation, which premises press implied, rea to maintain such a or contemplated sonably for uses there condition safe purposes which the ex invitation was of and tended.” matter the store-

Can it be said as a of law discharged obligation maintaining their their owners reasonably they premises pro- in a safe condition when space only through 20 inches which cus- vided pass? All had the defendant tomers owners passageway had to do to make the would have safe *8 push go-carts enough to the stack of basket back far passageway. definitely question It to the was widen jury by allowing to determine the whether pro- compressing Magellan Strait in the the store, duty imposed upon prietors discharged the them of their for the benefit the law business invitees. the 343 of Restatement of Torts forth Section sets liability of land owners to business the invitees. Com- of that Section declares: “A ment d business visitor is * Fowler, v. 372 Pa. 291. Jerominski entitled to expect possessor the will take reason- able care prem- to ascertain the actual condition of the ises discovered either make it reason- and, having to it, ably safe by repair or to the actual give of warning condition and the risk involved therein.”

There no cus- displayed were here signs warning tomers to of the beware “In” A door that invading door. into the direct line of of law- swings movement one on the or fully premises cannot be other than a defect risk which the is either proprietor readjust to required or to ex- post signs warning business invitees the istent danger.

The case of v. Great Atlantic & Tea Bilger Pacific 316 Pa. to the is Company, Majority which refers, outside completely the insofar sphere pertinency the principle law involved this case is concerned. the the injured after had was she There, left store. She fell in an outer vestibule in the words which, of this was “outside the doors of the was Court, store, sidewalk, on a level with the in a sense constituted an extension of it.” It exceedingly is important note, in that very case this Court said that however, of care degree part of a customer required is a for the question jury when accident occurs and interior No “aisles of the stores.” passageways matter read in how evidence is the case at bar, inescapable conclusion is the accident absolutely occurred in an interior of the defendants’ passageway store. Mrs. Hon of Majority contributory convicts she should

negligence supposition the doors opened inwardly known and that glass doors made of she should have seen being people in to the store. coming first place, for her doors practicable necessary study or feasible, her journey. moving in no associated with She was way *9 path through past Her of travel them. doors, required Had she not to the side. her to look forward, proceeding ahead had stum- sidewise while looked it floor front of obstacle her, over some bled argued undoubtedly in behalf been would looking lay negligence in not that her store defendant duty Majority says Hon, of Mrs. that the ahead. completing shopping, “watch where her was to after doing. exactly going.” she was That is what she was watching was where she and that is She was ahead* going! extremely Majority vital also overlooks this actually passed door had last

fact: any studying space so that she was struck, when might entering be to see who outside store utterly supererogatory. But even if we assume through Hon Mrs. should have looked doors certainly passed any with cannot show she them, justice keep her or be that she had to reason demanded being her order to avoid struck head over shoulder patrons equipped are from rear. Until store with charged they con- mirrors not be rear should with tributory negligence happens in their what wake.

I dissent. Appellant, ex rel. Commonwealth Lane, Baldi. v.