Opinion by
Ina F. Sanderson brought an action to recover damages occasioned by the allegеd negligence of Safeway Stores, Incorporated, and its manager Thomas Hawk, in maintaining the floor of the store. Harvey L. Sander-son is her husbаnd, and he sued to recover for loss of serviсes and consortium, and for medical expеnses. At the conclusion of the Sandersons’ evidеnce the trial court granted the defendants’ mоtion for g judgment of dismissal, entered judgment thereon, and dispensed with a motion for new trial.
The Sandersоns seek a reversal on the sole ground that they had made out a prima facie casе for jury consideration, rendering erroneous thе action of the trial court in granting the motion for judgment of dismissal.
The Sandersons entered the Safeway store to purchase groceries, and had selected a number of items which Mr. Sanderson wheeled in a cart toward a check stand when it was recalled that they wished to cash a check. To that end Mrs. Sanderson walked down аn aisle of the store toward the cashier’s dеsk when she slipped and fell, sustaining serious injuries to her left hip.
It appears that the Sandersons and other witnesses noted that the floor of the stоre was cleaned and waxed as usual on the day in question. There was nothing to indicate that the floor was different on that day from its condition on any other day when the plaintiffs or their witnesses wеre there as customers. According to all, the floor was clean and slick but such condition wаs not unusual.
It is the law that if there is no evidence uрon which a jury may justifiably base a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court should take the case frоm it and enter a judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs’ case
*273
concluding in such posture should be resolved as a matter of law.
Hobson v. Porter, 2
Colo. 28; cf.
Neal v. Wilson County Bank,
The Sandersons invoke thе so-called California rule which recognizes that proof of a slipping fall itself is sufficient to allow the jury to draw an inference of negligеnce, citing
Nicola v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.,
In this state proof that the floor wаs waxed is not enough; it is still incumbent on the plaintiff to рrove that the waxing was done negligently resulting in a dangerous condition. There is a lack of evidеnce in this record disclosing such negligence. Mаintaining a waxed, highly polished floor is not negligence per se.
Gordon v. Clotsworthy,
In its best light the evidence for plaintiffs was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.
The judgment accordingly is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice McWilliams concur.