Haynes v. Horton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Haynes v. Horton

135 S.E.2d 582, 261 N.C. 615, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 533

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 8, 1964

Docket389

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 S.E.2d 582 (Haynes v. Horton) 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

Haynes v. Horton, 135 S.E.2d 582, 261 N.C. 615, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 533 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff as a result of a fall in defendant’s drugstore about 9:30 A.M. on 20 February 1962. It is alleged that plaintiff slipped and fell while walking to a table to be served with a *616 soft drink, there was a wet and slippery substance on the floor where she fell, the substance was placed there by an employee of defendants who was engaged in mopping the floor, the substance created a hazardous condition, it was invisible to plaintiff, and defendants failed to warn of the condition.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the court allowed defendants’ motion for nonsuit. In this we find no error. Plaintiff’s evidence does not support her pleadings and is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence. The mere fact that one slips and falls on a floor does not constitute evidence of negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. Bowen v. Anchor Enterprises, Inc., 255 N.C. 359, 121 S.E. 2d 546; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E. 2d 717; Barnes v. Hotel Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E. 2d 180.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff as a result of a fall in defendant’s drugstore about 9:30 A.M. on 20 February 1962. It is alleged that plaintiff slipped and fell while walking to a table to be served with a *616 soft drink, there was a wet and slippery substance on the floor where she fell, the substance was placed there by an employee of defendants who was engaged in mopping the floor, the substance created a hazardous condition, it was invisible to plaintiff, and defendants failed to warn of the condition.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the court allowed defendants’ motion for nonsuit. In this we find no error. Plaintiff’s evidence does not support her pleadings and is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence. The mere fact that one slips and falls on a floor does not constitute evidence of negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. Bowen v. Anchor Enterprises, Inc., 255 N.C. 359, 121 S.E. 2d 546; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E. 2d 717; Barnes v. Hotel Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E. 2d 180.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E.2d 582, 261 N.C. 615, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-horton-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack