Cook v. County of Burke

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cook v. County of Burke

157 S.E.2d 611, 272 N.C. 94, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 974

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 1967

Docket360

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 611 (Cook v. County of Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. County of Burke, 157 S.E.2d 611, 272 N.C. 94, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 974 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

In view of the stipulation concerning liability insurance held by the county at the time of the plaintiff’s fall, the question of governmental immunity from suit for such an occurrence does not arise with reference to the validity of the judgment of non-suit. G.S. 153-9(44).

The liability of the county for injuries sustained by a pedestrian, falling upon a public walk within its courthouse grounds, would be no more extensive than that of a city to a pedestrian falling under similar circumstances upon a public sidewalk owned and maintained by the city. With reference to the liability of a city for such injuries, we recently said in Waters v. Roanoke Rapids, 270 N.C. 43, 153 S.E. 2d 783:

*97 “To survive a motion for judgment oí nonsuit, the plaintiff must introduce evidence sufficient to support these findings by the jury: (1) She fell and sustained injuries; (2) the proximate cause of the fall was a defect in or condition upon the sidewalk; (3) the defect was of such a nature and extent that a reasonable person, knowing of its existence, should have foreseen that if it continued some person using the sidewalk in a proper manner would be likely to be injured by reason of such condition; (4) the city had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the condition for a sufficient time prior to the plaintiff’s fall to remedy the defect or guard against injury therefrom.”

The plaintiff’s evidence fails to show how much time elapsed between the last cleaning of the walk and the plaintiff’s fall. There is no showing that the county knew or should have known of the presence upon the walk of the mixture of leaves, trash and pigeon droppings which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. The county is not an insurer of the safety of the walks upon its courthouse grounds. It is not liable to one who falls thereon in the absence of a showing that it failed to use reasonable care to maintain the walk in a safe condition. Reasonable care does not require it to maintain a constant patrol of walkways outside its buildings in order to keep them free from bird droppings and windblown trash.

The plaintiff having failed to prove negligence by the county, the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Cueiam.

In view of the stipulation concerning liability insurance held by the county at the time of the plaintiff’s fall, the question of governmental immunity from suit for such an occurrence does not arise with reference to the validity of the judgment of non-suit. G.S. 153-9(44).

The liability of the county for injuries sustained by a pedestrian, falling upon a public walk within its courthouse grounds, would be no more extensive than that of a city to a pedestrian falling under similar circumstances upon a public sidewalk owned and maintained by the city. With reference to the liability of a city for such injuries, we recently said in Waters v. Roanoke Rapids, 270 N.C. 43, 153 S.E. 2d 783:

*97 “To survive a motion for judgment oí nonsuit, the plaintiff must introduce evidence sufficient to support these findings by the jury: (1) She fell and sustained injuries; (2) the proximate cause of the fall was a defect in or condition upon the sidewalk; (3) the defect was of such a nature and extent that a reasonable person, knowing of its existence, should have foreseen that if it continued some person using the sidewalk in a proper manner would be likely to be injured by reason of such condition; (4) the city had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the condition for a sufficient time prior to the plaintiff’s fall to remedy the defect or guard against injury therefrom.”

The plaintiff’s evidence fails to show how much time elapsed between the last cleaning of the walk and the plaintiff’s fall. There is no showing that the county knew or should have known of the presence upon the walk of the mixture of leaves, trash and pigeon droppings which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. The county is not an insurer of the safety of the walks upon its courthouse grounds. It is not liable to one who falls thereon in the absence of a showing that it failed to use reasonable care to maintain the walk in a safe condition. Reasonable care does not require it to maintain a constant patrol of walkways outside its buildings in order to keep them free from bird droppings and windblown trash.

The plaintiff having failed to prove negligence by the county, the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 611, 272 N.C. 94, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-county-of-burke-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack