From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

W. T. Grant Company v. Phillips

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 14, 1967
158 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)

Opinion

43171.

ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1967.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1967.

Action for damages. Bibb Superior Court. Before Judge Bell.

Anderson, Walker Reichert, Albert P. Reichert, Jr., for appellant.

Shi Raley, F. R. Raley, for appellee.


Where it appears on motion for summary judgment that plaintiff fell on steps that were well constructed, clean, and free of any foreign substance, had handrails down each side with another in the middle, were well lighted and had abrasive or safety tread inserts inlaid in them, and plaintiff made no claim of defect in the steps beyond an assertion that there was a "slick spot" on them which caused her to fall, no negligence appeared on the part of the defendant and it was error to deny the motion.

ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1967 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1967.


Mrs. Sallie Mae Phillips seeks to recover damages of W. T. Grant Company for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained from a fall when she descended the steps of its store leading from the ground floor to the basement department of its store for the purpose of purchasing goods. She alleges that as she stepped from a landing (two steps above the basement floor) onto the first of the last two steps before reaching the basement floor she stepped "upon a slick place on the step which was not apparent or visible to her and which she could not have reasonable [sic] foreseen," whereupon her right foot slipped from under her, throwing her to the floor and bringing about an injury to her left knee, arm and shoulder. She also alleges that another lady had fallen at the same spot only a week earlier. Negligence is charged in the failure of the defendant to ascertain the condition of the steps and to remedy it so that it might safely be used, in failing to provide immediate assistance to her and procure transportation for her to the hospital, thus aggravating her injury. General demurrers to the petition were overruled.

Plaintiff's deposition was taken by the defendant, in which she testified relative to her descent of the steps: "I went down there to buy some drapes. . . I took hold of the railing and I walked step by step and when I got to the third step there, I just slipped . . . down I went and fell on my right ankle and right side . . . a colored girl who picked me up said that a lady fell right in the very identical way the other day, last week. . . I had ordinary low heel shoes on, the kind I wear to work all the time. . . No, my shoe didn't come off. I just slipped and my ankle turned and I fell. . . As to what caused me to slip, I can only tell you that there was a slick place there on the step. . . There wasn't no trash there or nothing on it. It was just slick steps. The step was not different from the others, it was just a slick place on it. . . I know it was slick. There was a slick spot on that step, just a slick spot on the step. . . There was no water or anything on the steps — just a slick place. The edge of the step was not slanting — just a slick place. It did not have an abrasive material on the edge of a different color from the body of the step. . . A lady in the store told me to go to the hospital and that she would call a doctor there to see me. I asked them how I was going but they didn't offer me a ride . . . and I walked to the hospital, where they sent me to the emergency room and put a bandage on my knee. No doctor saw me. After that I just doctored it myself, and afterwards Dr. Rawls treated me for my knee and a strained pelvis. When I started down the steps I took hold of the railing and held down. I was looking where I was going and I didn't see anything. My foot went forward, I slipped. . . I didn't notice any slickness on the other steps as I went down. . . I had a bag of popcorn in my arms — I had been eating it, but not then. I had the popcorn in my arms with my pocketbook. That was all I had. I was holding to the hand railing when I fell."

Depositions of Mrs. Vernedia Bozeman, assistant manager of the store, Mrs. Lillian Wheeler, a clerk in the store, Clara Clark, a clerk in the basement, and Elijah Clark, the janitor and cleaning man, were also obtained.

Mrs. Bozeman testified that she went to the basement right after the occurrence, saw Mrs. Phillips and learned that she had slipped on a step and fallen and that her shoe had come off when she fell. She looked at the steps where Mrs. Phillips had fallen and found them to be clean — rubbed her hand over the step and found nothing more than a little dust on it. The steps have a tread built into the tile that is darker than the rest of the step and is rougher so that one will not slip on it. Another woman, 74 years old, had fallen on the steps a week before, but that was because she missed a step — misstepped — not because of any defect in the steps or because of anything on them. She observed Mrs. Phillips' shoes, clothing, bundles, etc., for the purpose of making a report to the store management on it, and found that her shoes were "awful run down and the heels were over in the back . . . and were very loose." One of her shoes was off — it had come off when she fell. The steps are of regular width. The rough part of the tread is set in about two inches from the front.

Mrs. Wheeler testified that she was to the left of the steps when Mrs. Phillips fell — some 8 or 9 feet away, and that she immediately went to assist her. Mrs. Phillips was "grapping for her shoe that had fell off in her falling. She had kicked her shoe. It was loose and it was flat . . . it had slung off and she was reaching to get it." She looked at the steps and found them clean — nothing on them. There was plenty of light. There was no paper, water or other foreign substance on the steps. She was not looking at Mrs. Phillips when she fell, but heard it and went right over. She had never known of any accidents on the steps other than the lady who misstepped and this one.

Clara Clark testified that she was in the basement, saw Mrs. Phillips fall. One of her shoes came off when she fell. She looked closely at the steps but saw nothing on them. There was no water, paper or other foreign substance on them. There was plenty of light.

Elijah Clark testified that it was his duty to clean and keep the floors and steps of the store, and that the steps were never waxed. He inspected the floors and steps many times every day — perhaps as often as 50 times a day — and removed anything that might be found on them. He swept them every morning. He came up after Mrs. Phillips fell, inspected the steps and found nothing on them. They were clean. The steps are of marble or terrazzo, and have a tread set into them to prevent slipping. They are about 15 years old, but not worn and are in good condition. The steps are cleaned every night after closing with a wet mop and Clorox in water, and are swept in the morning and kept free of trash all during the day.

Photographs of the steps were obtained, showing them to be of terrazzo tile with safety tread inserts and with handrails on each side and one running down the middle. They do not appear to be worn.

The defendant moved for a summary judgment, attaching the depositions and photographs.

Mrs. Phillips responded with an affidavit asserting that she had fallen because of a slick spot on the step and that this particular spot was unlike the other steps in that it was slick, and that the slick spot was the sole cause of her fall, and that she did not trip or fall through any fault of her own.

From a denial of the summary judgment, and from the overruling of its general demurrers, defendant appeals. The orders were entered August 24, 1967, prior to the effective date of the Civil Practice Act. See On Motion for Rehearing in Abercrombie v. Ledbetter-Johnson Co., 116 Ga. App. 376 ( 157 S.E.2d 493).


In Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Co., 42 Ga. App. 347 ( 156 S.E. 275) it was held that no cause of action arose from slipping and falling on marble steps which presented a slick, smooth polished surface on which to step. We can see no difference in marble and terrazzo tile as a material for steps. There is nothing in the texture of either to render them inherently dangerous, and both are in common use as building materials. As was pointed out in that case "there is no suggestion in the petition in this case that any foreign substance was deposited upon the steps to render them slick and dangerous." See also Watson v. McCrory Stores, 97 Ga. App. 516 ( 103 S.E.2d 648). And here, particularly in connection with the evidence presented on the motion for summary judgment, it appears both from the plaintiff and other witnesses who examined the steps immediately after Mrs. Phillips fell that there was no foreign substance on the steps, that they were clean, and in addition that the steps had safety or abrasive inserts in the treads. Photographs of the steps in the record indicate that they are well constructed, with abrasive or safety inserts, and with handrails on each side and one running down the middle, and are well lighted. Although Mrs. Phillips testified that the steps had no abrasive safety treads, the photographs wholly refute this.

Mrs. Phillips' only contention is that there was a "slick spot" on the step. No negligence on the part of the defendant appears. The physical facts here do not support her or bring this case within the ruling of Scott v. Rich's, Inc., 47 Ga. App. 548 ( 171 S.E. 201), Townley v. Rich's, Inc., 84 Ga. App. 772 ( 67 S.E.2d 403), or Belk Gallant Co. v. McCrary, 88 Ga. App. 829 ( 78 S.E.2d 198). Nor are the cases involving waxed and highly polished floors ( Clayton v. Steve-Cathey, Inc., 105 Ga. App. 570 ( 125 S.E.2d 118)), or waxed and soapy steps ( Burns v. Great A. P. Tea Co., 105 Ga. App. 823 ( 125 S.E.2d 687)), or other foreign substances on the steps or floors ( S. H. Kress Co. v. Flanigan, 103 Ga. App. 301 ( 119 S.E.2d 32); Etheridge Motors, Inc. v. Haynie, 103 Ga. App. 676 ( 120 S.E.2d 317)), or rugs on polished floors ( Martin v. Henson, 95 Ga. App. 715 ( 99 S.E.2d 251); Durrett v. Tunno, 113 Ga. App. 839 ( 149 S.E.2d 826)), and the like, relevant in this situation.

The motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Cf. Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga. App. 391 ( 157 S.E.2d 526). This obviates any necessity for dealing with the ruling on the general demurrers.

Judgment reversed. Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.


Summaries of

W. T. Grant Company v. Phillips

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 14, 1967
158 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
Case details for

W. T. Grant Company v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:W. T. GRANT COMPANY v. PHILLIPS

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 14, 1967

Citations

158 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
158 S.E.2d 312

Citing Cases

Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock

This is insufficient. See W. T. Grant Co. v. Phillips, 116 Ga. App. 650 ( 158 S.E.2d 312). To hold the…

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.

She submitted no counter proof. We can find no basis for distinguishing the situation here from those in…