Aрpellant-plaintiff brought suit, seeking to recover for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell while walking along a concrete sidewalk on appellee-defendant’s business premises. The case was brought to trial before a jury, but, at the close of appellant’s evidеnce, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. Apрellant appeals from the judgment entered on the directed verdict.
1. Appellant sоught to introduce testimony to the effect that, when applied to concrete sidewalks, “a very simple item like [safety tape] at a very low cost can help insure against falls.” The trial court sustained appellee’s objection to the introduction of this testimony аnd appellant enumerates this evidentiary ruling as error.
Appellee is not an insurer agаinst the possiblility that its invitees
*406
will suffer a fall while on its business premises. “A storekeeper is not liable as an insurer of the safety of persons whom he has invited to enter his premises. He owes them а duty of ordinary care, to have his premises in a reasonably safe condition, not to lеad them into a dangerous trap, or to expose them to unreasonable risk, but to give thеm adequate and timely notice and warning of latent or concealed perils. [Cit.]”
Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co.,
It follows that the trial court correctly sustained appellee’s objection. The proffered tеstimony did not demonstrate that, at the time of the fall, appellee’s business premises werе not in a reasonably safe condition due to the absence of safety tape on the concrete sidewalk. It merely demonstrated that, through application of safety tape to the concrete sidewalk, appellee could have reduced the risk of an invitee suffering a fall on its business premises. If appellee’s sidewalk was constructed “of a material commonly accepted in the building industry,” the standard of ordinary carе had been met.
Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.,
2. Urging that the issue of apрellee’s liability for his fall should have been submitted to the jury, appellant enumerates as еrror the grant of the motion for a directed verdict.
Although it was raining when appellant fell, thе evidence would authorize a finding that he slipped in a greasy substance and not merely on the rain-slick concrete. However, there was no evidence that appellee had any actual knowledge of the presence of the greasy substance on thе sidewalk. There was mere speculation, but no evidence, that appellee’s еmployees were somehow responsible for the actual placement of the greasy substance on the sidewalk. Compare
Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell,
Insofar as appellee’s construсtive knowledge is concerned, there was no evidence that there was any employee of appellee in the immediate vicinity who could easily have noticed and removed the
*407
greasy substance from the sidewalk. “ ‘ “Thus, (the appellant’s) sole avenue of possible recovery is one in which constructive knowledge on the part of (the appellee) is premised upon (the appellee’s) failure to exercise reаsonable care in inspecting and keeping the premises in (a) safe condition. [Cit.]” ’ [Cit.]”
Boss v. Food Giant,
Judgment affirmed.