S. S. Kresge Co. v. Fader
116 Ohio St. 718, 158 N.E. 174, 58 A.L.R. 132 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner is not liable for negligence when a customer slips and falls on a floor near an entrance that is wet solely due to rainwater being tracked in from outside during a storm, as this is a temporary and obvious condition of which customers are reasonably aware.
Facts:
- On a rainy Saturday afternoon, May 3, 1924, Mrs. Fader and three companions entered the S. S. Kresge Company store.
- They had been walking on the wet public sidewalk immediately prior to entering.
- The floor just inside the entrance was wet and slippery due to rainwater tracked in by customers and blown in when the door opened.
- The wet spot was irregular in shape, about as wide as the door, and extended three to five feet into the store.
- The floor itself had no structural defects; the only substance on it was rainwater.
- Immediately after entering the store, Mrs. Fader slipped on this wet area of the floor, fell, and sustained an injury.
- At least two of Mrs. Fader's companions crossed the same wet spot just before her without falling.
- The wet condition of the floor had existed for at least 30 minutes before Mrs. Fader fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Fader sued the S. S. Kresge Company in a trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Fader for $15,000.
- The trial court ordered a remittitur, which Mrs. Fader accepted, reducing the judgment to $10,000.
- The S. S. Kresge Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The S. S. Kresge Company, as plaintiff in error, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a store owner breach the duty of ordinary care owed to a customer by failing to continuously mop a floor or warn of its condition when it becomes wet and slippery in the ordinary course of business from rainwater tracked in by patrons?
Opinions:
Majority - Kinkade, J.
No. A store owner does not breach its duty of ordinary care under these circumstances. The court reasoned that owners of businesses open to the public are not insurers of their patrons' safety; they only owe a duty of ordinary care. It is a matter of common knowledge that during a rainstorm, floors near entrances will become wet and slippery from moisture carried in on people's feet. This condition is obvious, temporary, and reasonably anticipated by anyone entering from the rain. The court held that ordinary care does not require a business to employ a large force of staff to continuously mop up rainwater as it accumulates, as this is an impractical and unnecessary burden given the obviousness of the situation to patrons.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the scope of a business owner's duty of care under premises liability law. It creates a precedent that business owners are generally not liable for injuries resulting from natural, temporary, and obvious hazards like tracked-in rainwater. The decision distinguishes such conditions from hidden defects or artificial hazards for which a landowner would be liable. This ruling protects businesses from becoming insurers against common, everyday risks associated with weather, forcing future plaintiffs in similar slip-and-fall cases to prove that the hazard was somehow unusual, hidden, or made more dangerous by the owner's actions.
