Opinion
March 9, 1949.
Present — Foster, P.J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 872.]
The defendant appeals from two judgments against it in Supreme Court, one in favor of each plaintiff, entered upon verdicts of a jury. The plaintiff Marie Vogel slipped and fell in defendant's store and suffered injuries. She sued to recover for her personal injuries, and the plaintiff Frank Vogel, her husband, sued to recover for medical expenses and loss of his wife's services. The evidence supports the verdicts on the issues of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence. There was no reversible error in admission or exclusion of evidence nor in the charge as given or in the refusal of the court to charge as requested. It appeared that the defendant had used a preparation known as Myco Sheen in treating its floors for a period of eight years prior to the accident involved. The defendant claimed that the use of this preparation prevented the floors from becoming slippery or unsafe. Testimony by witnesses that they had slipped on defendant's floor during this period was competent. The exclusion from evidence of a report by an inspector for the manufacturer of Myco Sheen to his employer that the floor was safe was not error. The report expressed merely the conclusion of the inspector on a question which was for the jury to determine as an issue in the case. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondents.