S.H. Kress & Co. v. Dyer

Summary

Mrs. Amelia Dyer sued S.H. Kress & Co. for injuries sustained after slipping on an allegedly slick and improperly oiled store floor. The court held that the evidence supported the jury’s findings that Kress was negligent and that the $3,800 damages award was not excessive. The court also rejected Kress’s claim that a reference to casualty insurance required a mistrial and affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. A retailer owes a customer who enters its store by implied invitation a duty to maintain the store floor in a reasonably safe condition for walking, and a dangerous condition arising from the manner in which the retailer or its employees maintain the floor constitutes a breach of that duty.
2. The evidence amply sustained the jury's finding that Kress negligently maintained the floor and knew or, through ordinary care, should have known that it was slick and slippery; the trial court therefore properly refused a peremptory instruction.
3. A cross-examination question directed to discovering a witness's employment, interest, or bias is permissible even when the witness's answer unexpectedly refers to a casualty insurer; where the question was proper and there was no showing of intentional misconduct, the reference did not require a mistrial or new trial.
4. The $3,800 award was not grossly excessive and did not conclusively demonstrate that the jury acted from passion or prejudice.
5. Kress waived its pleaded issue that any substance on the floor was placed there by an unknown person and could not have been discovered through ordinary care because it failed to request submission of that issue to the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Kress negligently maintained its store floor in a slick and slippery condition and knew or should have known of that condition.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to discharge the jury and declare a mistrial after a witness referred to the Maryland Casualty Company during cross-examination.
3. Whether the $3,800 damages award was grossly excessive and resulted from passion or prejudice.
4. Whether Kress waived its pleaded contention that any substance on the floor was placed there by an unknown person and could not have been discovered through ordinary care by failing to request submission of that issue.

Disposition

affirmed