Appeal, No. 161, March T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, March T., 1960, No. 35, in case of Leo Penn and Miriam Penn v. Isaly Dairy Co. Judgment reversed.
Samuel C. Holland, with him Theodore A. Tenor, for appellants.
Robert L. Orr, with him Reed, Ewing, Orr & Reed, for appellee.
Before Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
On January 31, 1959, Miriam Penn and her husband set out to visit their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Balter. When the Penns arrived at the Balter home, Mrs. Penn learned that Mrs. Balter was at appellee's store having a cup of coffee. Mrs. Penn decided to join her friend and walked the short distance from the Balter home to the Isaly store. She entered the store and walked some ten to thirteen feet toward the booth in which Mrs. Balter was seated. The women had just exchanged salutations when Mrs. Penn slipped and fell to the floor, sustaining physical injuries.
Mr. and Mrs. Penn filed an action of trespass to recover damages sustained by them as a result of the fall. At the conclusion of appellants' case on liability, the
trial court granted appellee's motion for compulsory non-suit. The court en banc refused appellants' motion to take off the non-suit and this appeal followed.
A non-suit should be entered only in a clear case, and on appeal from the refusal to take off a compulsory non-suit, the plaintiff must be given the benefit of all favorable testimony and every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom and all conflicts therein must be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Schwartz v. Urban Redev. Auth., 411 Pa. 530, 192 A.2d 371 (1963); Miller v. McMinn's Industries, Inc., 410 Pa. 234, 188 A.2d 738 (1963). Examining the record in the light of this oft-stated standard of review, we conclude that the judgment of non-suit was improperly entered.
Mrs. Penn testified that the floor of the store was of a linoleum or composition tile material and that it appeared clean and glossy. She stated that she was wearing flat heeled shoes and that her foot slipped causing her to fall backwards into a sitting position on the floor. She further testified that after the fall she observed a skid mark on the floor caused by her heel. This skid mark was described as an indentation in the coating of the floor.
This testimony was corroborated in all particulars by Mrs. Balter who also observed the skid mark. Mr. Balter, who came upon the scene shortly after the fall, also inspected the skid mark and described it as having raised sides, as though someone "had slid throught the mud or something". A closer ...