Legal Opinion

Galarno v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1932No. Docket No. 78, Calendar No. 36,517PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.

Plaintiff, a customer in one of defendant’s stores in Bay City, slipped on the floor, fell, and was injured. Her averment of negligence against defendant is that the floor was oily, greasy, and unsafe. The jury found the fall occasioned by the oily condition of the floor. Plaintiff testified that an employee of defendant was oiling the floor while she was in the store, and, as indicating an accumulation of oil where she fell, testified that her dress, underclothing, and stockings were ruined by the oil. She had verdict and judgment. Defendant has appealed.

The verdict is not against the great…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Isaac Benesch & Sons, Inc. v. FerklerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  3. Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Filipowicz v. S. S. Kresge Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Pollack v. Oak Office BuildingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. Yearsley v. City BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1960

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API