Lubin v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc.

As conceded in the majority opinion, the authorities amply support the propositions that a storekeeper is not an insurer of its customer’s safety; that liability exists, in a ease of this kind, only for proven negligence; that maintaining a floor in a slick or slippery condition by treatment with wax or oil does not, in itself, constitute negligence. (Olinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 21 Ill2d 469, 476, 173 NE2d 443 (1961); Dixon v. Hart, 344 Ill App 432, 436, 101 NE2d 282 (1951).)

Yet the majority appear to find evidence of negligence in the testimony of the firemen and policeman…