Pratt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Tbe defendant was not an insurer of tbe safety of those who entered its store for tbe purpose of making purchases, and tbe doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Cooke v. Tea Co., 204 N. C., 495, 168 S. E., 679; Fox v. Tea Co., 209 N. C., 115, 182 S. E., 662; Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N. C., 368, 8 S. E. (2d), 199; Winders v. Powers, 217 N. C., 580, 9 S. E. (2d), 131.

When claim is made on account of injuries caused by some substance on tbe floor along and upon which customers will be expected to walk, in order to justify recovery, it must be made to appear that tbe…