S. H. Kress & Co. v. Maddox

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding Jennie Maddox damages for injuries sustained when she fell on an allegedly oily floor in S. H. Kress & Company’s store. The court held that evidence of the store’s floor condition shortly before the accident was admissible, that assumption of risk was not at issue because it had not been pleaded or supported by evidence of knowledge of the danger, and that the verdict against the corporation was not inconsistent with a verdict favoring its manager. The court also rejected a challenge based on alleged juror misconduct.

Holdings

1. Evidence of the condition of the place where an injury occurred, observed a reasonable time before the occurrence, is admissible when its character and timing fairly support an inference that the condition existed at the time of the accident; the weight of such evidence is for the jury.
2. An instruction on contributory negligence is not erroneous merely because the court did not on its own motion advise the jury that the plaintiff's evidence could be considered on that issue, when the defendant failed to make a proper and timely request or call the omission to the trial court's attention.
3. Assumption of risk requires knowledge and appreciation of the danger; where the defendant did not plead assumption of risk and the evidence does not show that the plaintiff knew or was chargeable with knowledge of the danger, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction on that defense.
4. Because competent evidence supported an issue of negligence, the trial court properly overruled the defendant's demurrer to the evidence and refused to direct a verdict for the defendant.
5. A verdict in favor of an employee does not necessarily require a verdict for the corporate employer when the employer's liability may arise from negligent acts of other employees who were not joined as defendants or from the corporation's own or vice-principal liability.
6. The trial court did not err in refusing a mistrial where the claim that a juror had made an unauthorized inspection of the premises was based only on speculation and was unsupported by evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony concerning the heavily oiled condition of the store floor observed shortly before the accident was admissible to show the floor's condition at the time of the fall.
2. Whether the jury instruction on contributory negligence was reversible error because it placed the burden of proof on the defendant without expressly stating that the plaintiff's evidence could also be considered.
3. Whether the evidence raised assumption of risk so that the defendant was entitled to an instruction on that defense despite not pleading it.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit negligence to the jury and withstand the defendant's demurrer to the evidence and request for a directed verdict.
5. Whether the verdict for store manager M. Q. Davis required a verdict for the corporate defendant.
6. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial based on alleged unauthorized inspection of the premises and advocacy by a juror.

Disposition

affirmed