{ "id": 5245874, "name": "Ann Wroblewski, Appellant, v. Hillman's, Inc., a Corporation, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Wroblewski v. Hillman's, Inc.", "decision_date": "1963-09-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 48,826", "first_page": "246", "last_page": "251", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ill. App. 2d 246" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "163 NE2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill2d 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5329635 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/18/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 Ill App 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5626528 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/273/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 ALR2d 6", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 Ill App 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5065800 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/342/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 Ill App 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3270741 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/293/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 Ill 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4980347 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/292/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 NE2d 443", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill2d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2730514 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474" }, { "page": "476" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/21/0469-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 455, "char_count": 7376, "ocr_confidence": 0.546, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.794883136742984e-07, "percentile": 0.8363003016778199 }, "sha256": "d1a649f4b91e82fce7156ca68256fe33a2a3ea4f95606bb0db25245c906ef4a6", "simhash": "1:af30cca0f20f5431", "word_count": 1226 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:38.694985+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BURKE, PJ and BRYANT, J, concur." ], "parties": [ "Ann Wroblewski, Appellant, v. Hillman\u2019s, Inc., a Corporation, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MB. JUSTICE FBIEND\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff brought suit against Hillman\u2019s, Inc., for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when she slipped on a vegetable leaf near the check-out counter of defendant\u2019s retail food store. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the end of plaintiff\u2019s case, denied her post-trial motion, and entered judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff appeals.\nThe salient facts disclose that on Saturday, April 16, 1955, plaintiff, accompanied by her six-year-old daughter, went shopping at Hillman\u2019s at 28 West Washington Street in Chicago. The store was operated on a self-service basis, except for a few departments. After plaintiff had paid for her purchases at the check-out counter and gone through the exit turnstile, she realized she had forgotten to purchase bakery goods. Consequently, she left her shopping bag with her daughter, who sat on a bench near the counter, and started toward the entrance turnstile. Before she reached the turnstile her left heel came in contact with a vegetable leaf, and she fell down. Defendant\u2019s store manager had plaintiff sit down on a bench, picked up the vegetable leaf, and notified plaintiff\u2019s sister, who at that time was an employee in the store. Plaintiff\u2019s sister took her home in a cab, and after plaintiff reached her house she took some aspirin and went to bed. The nature and extent of plaintiff\u2019s injuries are not relevant to this appeal, and will not be discussed.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict was predicated upon plaintiff\u2019s failure to show either that the vegetable leaf in question was dropped by one of defendant\u2019s servants or that it had been in place for a sufficient length of time to charge defendant with constructive notice of its presence on the floor. It is our opinion that defendant\u2019s motion correctly stated the applicable Illinois law. Olinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 21 Ill2d 469, 474, 173 NE2d 443 (1961), a leading case, states the rule as follows:\n\u201cWhere a business invitee is injured by slipping on a foreign substance on the premises, liability may be imposed if the substance was placed there by the negligence of the proprietor or his servants, or, if the substance was on the premises through acts of third persons or there is no showing how it got there, liability may be imposed if it appears that the proprietor or his servant knew of its presence, or that the substance was there a sufficient length of time so that in the exercise of ordinary care its presence should have been discovered. Davis v. South Side Elevated Railroad Co., 292 Ill 378; Pabst v. Hillmans, 293 Ill App 547; Schmelzel v. Kroger Grocery and Baking Co., 342 Ill App 501; Annotation, 61 ALR2d 6 et seq.\u201d\nWith reference to determining what circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a reasonable inference that the foreign matter was present on defendant\u2019s premises through the act of defendant or his servants, the court said (p 475):\n\u201c[E]ven where there is proof that the foreign substance was related to defendant\u2019s business, but no further evidence is offered other than the presence of the substance and the occurrence of the injury, defendant is entitled to a directed verdict, such evidence being insufficient to support the necessary inference. Jones v. Kroger Grocery and Baking Co., 273 Ill App 183; Schmelzel v. Kroger Grocery and Baking Co., 342 Ill App 501.\u201d\nIn the instant case there is no evidence in the record as to the length of time the vegetable leaf had been in place prior to plaintiff\u2019s fall; no evidence that anyone observed it on the floor for any length of time prior to the fall; no evidence as to its condition before or after plaintiff slipped on it. Accordingly, there is no evidence from which a jury might infer that the vegetable leaf had been in place for a sufficient length of time to charge defendant with constructive notice of its presence on the floor.\nPlaintiff asserts, however, that a jury might reasonably find that the leaf in question came to rest on the floor through the negligence of defendant\u2019s employees. She argues that the leaf on which she slipped may have fallen from an empty shopping cart as one of defendant\u2019s employees jostled it into position for reuse by incoming customers. There is no evidence to support plaintiff\u2019s speculation on this point. Even if we were to assume that such rearrangement did take place, the record before us is devoid of any evidence as to where these carts were located, or of any evidence that they were jostled about in the vicinity of plaintiff\u2019s fall. Moreover, even if there were such evidence before us, it would be wholly speculative to assume that the leaf in question fell from a shopping cart under defendant\u2019s control rather than from a parcel carried by a departing customer, since it appears from the evidence that plaintiff\u2019s fall occurred past the check-out counter and entrance turnstile in a passageway apparently used by customers entering and leaving the store. Thus, while it is reasonable to assume that \u201ca vegetable leaf\u201d (this being its only description in the record) was related to defendant\u2019s operation of its grocery store, there is no basis in the evidence for an inference that it was dropped by an employee of defendant rather than by a third person. Under the authority of the Olinger case we are of opinion that the trial court\u2019s direction of a verdict for defendant was proper.\nNotwithstanding the Olinger case, plaintiff argues that a jury might properly find negligence in defendant\u2019s failure to prewrap all vegetables so as to prevent any possibility that vegetable matter might fall to the floor and create a walking hazard for the patrons of the store. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence does show that customers placed unwrapped vegetables in shopping carts prior to their being \u201cbagged\u201d by defendant\u2019s employees. However, there is no evidence before us which indicates that this practice was unusual or created hazardous conditions for the patrons of the store. There is nothing in the record which indicates that falls on vegetable matter were of such frequent occurrence as to warrant the extraordinary protective measure which plaintiff urges us to impose. We are not disposed to hold that all vegetables must be wrapped before being placed in carts, nor are we disposed to change the law of storekeeper\u2019s liability by bolding that failure to prepackage all vegetables will for that reason alone render a storekeeper liable for any falls on such matter. A storekeeper is not the insurer of his customer\u2019s safety. Olinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 21 Ill2d 469, 476, 173 NE2d 443 (1961). Except in extraordinary circumstances not relevant here, the law does not require that one employ the safest of all possible procedures in order to avoid tort liability. Watts v. Bacon & Van Buskirk Glass Co., 18 Ill2d 226, 232, 163 NE2d 425 (1960).\nNo convincing reason for reversal having been shown, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBURKE, PJ and BRYANT, J, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MB. JUSTICE FBIEND" } ], "attorneys": [ "Walter Hamilton, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Lord, Bissel and Brook, of Chicago (John O\u2019Meara and Bichard E. Mueller, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ann Wroblewski, Appellant, v. Hillman\u2019s, Inc., a Corporation, Appellee.\nGen. No. 48,826.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nSeptember 17, 1963.\nWalter Hamilton, of Chicago, for appellant.\nLord, Bissel and Brook, of Chicago (John O\u2019Meara and Bichard E. Mueller, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0246-01", "first_page_order": 256, "last_page_order": 261 }