Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smithson v. WT Grant Company (N.C. 1967)
- Morgan v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (N.C. 1966)
- Long v. National Food Stores, Inc. (N.C. 1964)
- Edna L. Duggins v. Colonial Stores, Inc. (4th Cir. 1963)
- Raper v. McCRORY-McLELLAN CORPORATION (N.C. 1963)
- Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. v. Mary F. Bailey (4th Cir. 1959)
- Thomas F. Mullen, Jr. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (4th Cir. 1958)
- Hunter v. Dixie Home Stores (S.C. 1957)
- Reese v. Piedmont, Inc. (N.C. 1954)
- Reese v. Piedmont, Inc. (N.C. 1954)
- Revis v. Orr (N.C. 1951)
- Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (N.C. 1949)
- Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, Inc. (N.C. 1949)
- Watkins v. Taylor Furnishing Co. (N.C. 1944)
- Brown v. . Montgomery Ward Co. (N.C. 1940)
- Griggs v. . Sears, Roebuck Co. (N.C. 1940)
- Pratt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (N.C. 1940)
- Anderson v. Reidsville Amusement Co. (N.C. 1938)
- Allison v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (4th Cir. 1938)
- Waters v. Harris (N.C. 1959)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Since there is no evidence of how the beet got upon the floor of the aisle, or of how long the beet had been upon the floor before the plaintiff stepped on it, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter its store for the purpose of making purchases, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Before the plaintiff can recover she must, by evidence, establish actionable negligence on .the part of the defendant, Bowden v. Kress, 198 N. C., 559; Cooke v. Tea Co., 204 N. C., 495, and this she has failed to do.
The judgment is ,
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.