*1 Daum. Kuminkoski, Mus- C. J., Before 1968. March Argued Bell, Roberts, O’Brien Cohen, Eagen, manno, Jones, JJ. Gingo- him <& Gingolani Jr., with Gingolani,
A. R. appellants. for lani, Rock- Millar & Brandon, him Millar, with S.
Hugh appellees. enstein, April 16, 1968: Mb. Justice Musmanno, Mrs. Nora KuminkosM
tlie Butler business establishment defendant Emerg- Packing Company supply lead- ing she fell on the outside store, ing down to the ground. against suit brought She dan- allowing in defendant, charging negligence in gerous substance to on the steps, accumulate not grasped a handrail have providing might which she by save herself from fall be caused which could chips slipping the mixture of wood descending which coated gravel the treads exit.
At reach trial unable to ensuing was The unanimous verdict and discharged. was un- record fendant moved for on the whole judgment der the Act of P.S. April P. L. 70, §684. ap- has The motion. judge The granted pealed. cannot
The the court below judgment Superior Court, be affirmed under law. same effect, Court to the following utterances this in the case but not as declared succinctly well phrased, that: Ct. Superior of Johnson v. 204 Pa. Dew, defendant entered for the “Judgment can be the light in record viewed evidence, whole con- all resolving to the advantageous plaintiff, him the and giving flicts therein his favor, issues to the pertaining fact and every therefrom, deduced be reasonably involved favor.” his judgment a verdict and not justify justify not at bar does record the case could a verdict conclusion that for a long It shows the evidence. be sustained the defendant plaintiff’s accident, to the prior the floor of its store sprinkling accustomed was with sawdust. It clear this sawdust was was tracked outside and fell to the outside some it having without her Unbeknownst plaintiff, some fact, chance to become with that any acquainted and fine with saw- chips gravel commingled to form In leav- dust an unfirm surface. pack- large ing store, therein, being purchased the meat she had age, constituency perceive and thus could not minutely footstep. Un- the substance which under each passed aas not, der such circumstances, negligence contributory matter of be with law, charged ocularly it dis- in not even having assuming seen, pomaded the mixture of the elements which :cérnible, *3 the the de- in entering judgment court below, not met bur- had said that
fendant, In condition. of unsafe proof establishing den of 381 Inc., Katz v. Wanamaker Phila., the case of John directed a verdict the trial court Pa. 477, adduced that the evidence asserting fendant, liability to insufficient establish plaintiff as here, of part There, not dis- under conditions slippery fallen reversing In the lower the ones at bar. to similar of the two testimony “From-the Court said: court, could have found that there a was: women of dirt as well as water quantity considerable could, the combination the two form that steps, condition. evidence slippery Plaintiff’s a slimy in, favorable to her light considered must'be from; with, deducible plain- say we cannot considered, So testimony. an unsafe or out existence make failed tiff condition.” In the instant it would case, be a most reasonable inference from the evidence that the commingling chips and produce gravel, skidding surface. also charged the defendant with neg-
ligence provide failing situation handrail where such an item would be required the defend- ant towas honor its obligations to reasonable exercise care for the safety A possessor customers. land encumbered aby set of which, exposure to weather or other foreseeable conditions, may become or slippery otherwise pedestri- unsafe to has the ans, duty its exercise of reasonable care, equip the stairway with graspable handrail or some other device which offer refuge in the event pedestrian loses his footing.
The court below also said proved that the defendant knew or should have known of the existence of the unsafe condition. In Katz v. John Wanamaker, Pa. this Court said: “What will amount to constructive defec notice of a or tive dangerous condition upon a defendant’s premises, necessarily varies under the circumstances of each case is not solely determinable lapse time between the origin the unsafe condi tion and the accident.” *4 presence of the sawdust on steps
a mere chance occurrence but a condition continuing known Its with other mixing sub- to produce stances dangerous situation for patrons of the defendant’s establishment was a set of facts the jury which could conclude constructive no- to the defendant. tice reversed with a
Judgment venire facias de novo. Mr. Mr. Justice Eagen, Justice O’Brien and Mr. Egberts concur in the result. .Justice Jones and Mr. Mr. Justice Justice Cohen dissent. Dissenting Bell : Mb. Chief Justice A.M., 11:00 at approximately purchase plaintiff went to defendant’s store twice For a had been long going there, she fell on which she steps month to meat. The she steps which day the accident same were to enter months using many used and had been and store. the sawdust Moreover, (1) leave the (2) steps; on the inside as well as floor, she steps when plaintiff had seen sawdust she came into and when morning went the store of the saw- out and fell. known Indeed, long for a dust condition this store and its condi- created a sawdust time, risk it and assumed whatever knew tion, there was falling. admitted that
Furthermore, she meats she was package size “squeeze” not even see she clearly Not her steps beyond package. head to see the her but she was assume the risk danger, did she re- should bar her clearly negligence, guilty covery. Judg- I affirm the
For the above reasons, Court. of the lower ment Bachelor.
O’Donnell,