Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968 · Torts

405 F.2d 464 (1968)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsPremises liabilityConstructive noticeSlip and fallstorekeeper dutyordinary carereasonably safe aislesforeign substance

Facts

Joye slipped and fell on a banana or peeled banana near the back of A & P's supermarket after passing a banana display near the front of the store. There was no evidence that A & P put the banana on the floor or had actual notice of it. No one saw the banana until after Joye fell, and plaintiff offered no direct evidence of how long it had been on the floor. The evidence, viewed favorably to Joye, showed only that the floor may not have been swept for as long as 35 minutes and that after the fall the banana was dark brown, dirty, sandy, and sticky around the edges, with dirt on the floor nearby.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find that A & P had constructive notice of the banana on the floor. More specifically, did the condition and surrounding circumstances permit a reasonable inference that the banana had been on the floor long enough to charge the store with notice under South Carolina law?

Rule

Under South Carolina law, a storekeeper is not an insurer of customer safety but owes a duty of ordinary care to keep aisles and passageways reasonably safe. Where there is no evidence that the store created the hazard or had actual notice of it, the plaintiff must show that the foreign substance had been on the floor long enough to charge the store with constructive notice. Evidence that does not permit a reasonable inference of the duration of the dangerous condition is insufficient to go to the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a grocery store in Columbia, South Carolina, Dana Mercer slipped on a crushed strawberry near the dairy coolers. No one had seen the strawberry before the fall, and the only evidence was that the floor had last been inspected about 25 minutes earlier and that the strawberry looked smeared and dusty after Dana fell.

If Dana sues the store and offers no evidence that store employees dropped the strawberry or actually knew it was there, should the case go to the jury on constructive notice?

Explanation. A storekeeper is not an insurer of customer safety. When the plaintiff cannot show the store created the hazard or had actual notice, the plaintiff must present evidence allowing a reasonable inference that the foreign substance remained on the floor long enough to charge the store with constructive notice. Here, the smeared and dusty condition of the strawberry after the fall, plus a 25-minute gap in inspection, does not sufficiently indicate duration; it remains speculative whether the strawberry had been there moments or much longer.