TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Bowling

GIANT FOOD STORES, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, v. Louise BOWLING, Appellee

Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Bowling, 202 A.2d 783 (D.C. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 31, 1964
Docket
No. 3455
Judges
Hood, Quinn, Myers
Citations
202 A.2d 7831964 D.C. App. LEXIS 266

Opinion — Hood

HOOD, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for personal injuries suffered by appellee when she slipped and fell at the entrance of one of appellant’s stores. She claimed that her fall was due to an unusual and unnecessarily large accumulation of slush and water on the metal strip in the entrance-way.

Appellant first contends that the evidence did not justify a finding of negligence on its part. We do not agree. A storekeeper is not an insurer of its customers but does owe them the duty of using reasonable care for their safety. The evidence here presented a question for the jury whether under the circumstances appellant had failed in that duty.

Appellant also contends that the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence medical bills incurred by appellee in the absence of testimony, other than hers, that those bills were reasonable and necessary. In Nunan v. Timberlake, 66 App.D.C. 150, 153 , 85 F.2d 407, 410 (1936), it was said:

“We think the better view is that in a suit in tort for personal injury the plaintiff makes a prima facie case by proving the professional services rendered and the amount of the bill paid or incurred.”

Appellant argues that this rule applies to bills incurred immediately following the injury and that certain of the bills here covered services rendered a considerable length of time after the injury. We think the admission of the bills, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, was within the discretion of the trial court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11971: 21980: 11982: 11983: 12007: 12008: 119652026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Crowe v. Overland Hauling, Inc.245 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
  2. Auxier v. Kraisel466 A.2d 416 (D.C. 1983)
  3. Walters v. Littleton290 S.E.2d 839 (Va. 1982)
  4. Napier v. Safeway Stores, Inc.215 A.2d 479 (D.C. 1965)
  5. Structural Preservation Systems, Inc. v. Petty927 A.2d 1069 (D.C. 2007)
  6. Reese v. Crosby280 A.2d 526 (D.C. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Green v. United States Postal Service589 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2008)
  2. Structural Preservation Systems, Inc. v. Petty927 A.2d 1069 (D.C. 2007)
  3. Auxier v. Kraisel466 A.2d 416 (D.C. 1983)
  4. Walters v. Littleton290 S.E.2d 839 (Va. 1982)
  5. Montgomery v. Dennis411 A.2d 61 (D.C. 1980)
  6. Reese v. Crosby280 A.2d 526 (D.C. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nunan v. Timberlake, 85 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1936) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list