opinion: BRODSKY v. SAFEWAY STORES, Inc.
  No. 8943.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
  Argued Nov. 14, 1945.
  Decided Dec. 17, 1945.
  Mr. Mark Friedlander, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Jack Politz, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
  Mr. Richard W. Galiher, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Henry I. Quinn, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
  Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellant’s complaint charged that appellee allowed vegetable debris to be on the floor of its store and so caused appellant, a customer, to fall and be injured. There was evidence that appellant slipped on some green vegetable. There was no evidence as to the quantity on the floor, how it got there, or how long it had been there. For all that appears, a customer may have dropped a small vegetable just before appellant fell and appellee’s employees may have nad no chance to discover and remove it. Since there was no evidence to the contrary, there was no evidence of negligence on appellee’s part either in creating the alleged condition or in permitting it to continue. Accordingly the trial judge was right in directing a verdict for appellee. A storekeeper is not an insurer of the safey of his premises but is responsible only for negligence. If there had been evidence that the condition complained of had continued for a substantial time there might have been a question for the jury.
  Affirmed.
  F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Williams, 59 App.D.C. 347, 41 F.2d 970; Selby v. S. Kann Sons Co., 61 App.D.C. 36, 73 F.2d 853; Sanitary Grocery Co. v. Snead, 67 App.D.C. 129, 90 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 703, 58 S.Ct. 22, 82 L.Ed. 543. There is nothing to the contrary in Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Hickey, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 137 F.2d 677.
  Washington Market Co. v. Clagett, 19 App.D.C. 12; Hellyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 62 App.D.C. 318, 67 F.2d 584; District of Columbia v. Richards, 75 U.S. App.D.C. 349,128 F.2d 297.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".