It is well established in this jurisdiction that the proprietor of a store, while not the insurer of the safety of customers while on the premises, does owe to such customers the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warnings of hidden perils and unsafe conditions in so far as same can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision. In the instant case there is no complaint as to the condition of the stairway or as to the condition of the lights at the time of the accident. The plaintiff relies solely upon her allegations of negligence in respect to the congested crowd at the head of the steps and as to the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant in conducting a demonstration at or near the head of the steps and in calling up the crowd to see the demonstration. Plaintiff saw the demonstration in progress, observed the crowd at the head of the steps and proceeded on into the area that was congested. As a result of the movement of the crowd in response to the call of the demonstrator to come up and see the demonstration she was shoved or pushed in such manner that she lost her balance and fell down the steps.
It would seem to us that this is a casualty of the crowded condition in the store which was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. The record fails to disclose any negligent or wrongful act on the part of the defendant or any breach of its duty to the customers in its store. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of nonsuit was proper.
Affirmed.
Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.