## Facts

- Mary Douglas was shopping at a Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (A&P) grocery store in Gulfport, Mississippi, on July 3, 1979, during a crowded pre-holiday period.
- While near the frozen-food case (in the frozen-food aisle), Douglas slipped on a wet substance and fell.
- When she attempted to get up, she felt sharp, burning pain.
- Store manager Curtis Fairley responded shortly after the fall and observed a large amount of water on the floor adjacent to the frozen-food case.
- Fairley prepared an accident report describing the condition as water on the floor caused by the frozen-food case leaking.
- Fairley testified he did not know how long the water had been on the floor; he stated he typically walked the aisles many times each day and had passed through that aisle earlier without seeing water.
- Testimony indicated the floors had been cleaned earlier that day and that employees had been in the area during the morning; no employee testified to having seen water on the floor before the fall.
- The store porter testified he had cleaned the floors overnight/early morning and had not observed pooling water; he also testified water could occasionally come from the frozen-food case and would be wiped up when noticed, and that no sweeper’s log was kept.
- A frozen-food employee testified he had worked in the aisle that morning and did not notice water or any leakage problem.
- Douglas sued A&P for negligence based on the wet-floor condition.
- At trial, Douglas offered no direct evidence showing how the water got on the floor or that A&P had actual knowledge of the water before she fell.
- The trial judge refused several of Douglas’s requested jury instructions on negligence (including peremptory instructions), and the jury returned a verdict for A&P.
- The trial judge denied Douglas’s post-verdict motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial, and Douglas appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Douglas’s requested jury instructions on negligence, including peremptory instructions that would have directed a verdict for Douglas on liability.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Douglas’s motion for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial on the ground that the defense verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for A&P.
- The court held the trial judge properly refused Douglas’s requested instructions, including peremptory negligence instructions, because the evidence on negligence and notice was disputed and largely circumstantial.
- The court held the jury’s verdict for A&P was supported by the evidence and was not so contrary to the evidence as to require JNOV or a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A store owner owes an invitee a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe, but the owner is not an insurer of customer safety.
- In a slip-and-fall case involving a transient condition such as water on the floor, the plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it in time to correct it.
- Constructive notice generally requires proof that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that, with reasonable care, the defendant should have discovered and remedied it.
- Peremptory instructions are improper when the proof on negligence is conflicting or depends heavily on circumstantial evidence; such cases are ordinarily for the jury to decide.
- A trial court’s denial of JNOV or a new trial will be affirmed when there is an evidentiary basis on which reasonable jurors could have found for the prevailing party.

## Conclusion

Because Douglas did not present proof establishing how the water came to be on the floor or that A&P knew (or should have known) of it before her fall, and because the evidence on negligence and notice was disputed and circumstantial, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of Douglas’s requested negligence instructions and upheld the jury’s defense verdict and the denial of JNOV or a new trial.


Douglas v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 405 So. 2d 107 (1981)