Craig v. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc.

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On this appeal the question involved is whether the trial judge, in a tort action before a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, was correct in granting the defendantappellee’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. On November 7, 1965, the plaintiff-appellant, a regular patron, entered defendant’s store between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of making a purchase. After making her selection, she slipped and fell while walking toward the check-out counter.

As a result of her fall she sustained a fractured sacrum and other injuries. Prior to her fall, a half-gallon carton of milk had been dropped on the floor in one of the aisles of the store. The milk was mopped up by a porter and a check-out clerk sprinkled ordinary wood sawdust over the wet area of the aisle. Before the clerk had completed the job of wiping up the sawdust, he returned to serve a customer at the checkout counter, but he had swept the sawdust into a two feet square pile next to a seldom used cash register.

The aisle was covered with vinyl tile and was six to eight feet wide. Plaintiff was not warned, orally or by a sign, that there was sawdust and milk in one of the aisles, nevertheless, she saw the sawdust in the aisle but not the milk, yet knowingly walked into the pile of sawdust when she fell. On cross-examination the plaintiff testified as follows: ⁹⁷ “Q. Mrs. Craig, you saw the sawdust, didn’t you? A. Sure I saw it.

It was scattered far enough on the aisle. Q. You knew it was slippery, didn’t you? A. Well, not only me but anyone knows it is slippery. Q. We are not talking about anyone.

We are talking about you. A. Yes, I knew it was slippery. ❖ ❖ Q. You walked through it though, didn’t you? A. Yes. =!= =S= Q. You just walked through what you knew to be sawdust on the floor? A. Yes.” Assuming without