Appeal, No. 304, Jan. T., 1953, from order of Court of Common Pleas of McKean County, Feb. T., 1952, No. 81, in case of Willard V. Parker v. McCrory Stores Corporation. Order affirmed.
Bennett B. Friedman, for appellant.
E. G. Potter , with him W. D. Gallup, Robert J. Healy and Gallup, Potter & Gallup, for appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL
Plaintiff, about 48 years of age, entered the store of defendant as a prospective customer on Saturday, February 3, 1951, about 3:50 p.m. It had been snowing intermittently during the day and some of the snow had been carried into the store and melted there. There were two doorways; plaintiff entered the right-hand door and walked about 6 feet -- taking 3 or 4 steps -- and slipped and fell on the wooden floor and suffered severe injuries. He was nonsuited.
On this appeal it is by now hornbrook law that plaintiff must be given the benefit of every fact and every reasonable inference of fact arising from the evidence, and all conflicts therein must be resolved in his favor: McDonald v. Ferrebee, 366 Pa. 543, 79 A.2d 232.
Plaintiff was looking at the floor; it looked very sloppy; he saw it was wet and dirty and there was a
puddle or pool of water about 5 feet in diameter into which he deliberately walked. The aisle was sufficiently wide to have permitted him to have passed by the pool of water if he had gone to his left just by the entrance of the left-hand door. Several witnesses came in after the accident and testified as to the wet floor; two or three witnesses testified to having entered the store three or four or five minutes prior to plaintiff's accident and that the floor was "plenty wet", "a puddle", "a pool of water", when they entered.
The store was not crowded, the lighting was good where plaintiff fell; plaintiff's view was not obstructed by other customers or by carrying any package; and the only evidence of the existence of the pool of water which was caused by the melted snow was that it had existed for a period of from 3 to 5 minutes.
Under these facts the Court below wisely and correctly granted a non-suit. Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant had either actual or constructive notice ...