Jones v. Kinston Housing Authority

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Jones v. Kinston Housing Authority

138 S.E.2d 235, 262 N.C. 604, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 702

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 14, 1964

Docket165

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 235 (Jones v. Kinston Housing Authority) 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

Jones v. Kinston Housing Authority, 138 S.E.2d 235, 262 N.C. 604, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 702 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

The evidence introduced by the plaintiff in the trial below tends to show that the defendant maintains adequate paved driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and paved entrances to its apartment buildings, sufficient to accommodate its tenants and their visitors. The plaintiff, however, on the occasion complained of, chose to approach the premises of the defendant over the private property of an adjacent landowner, and to walk over an unlighted area with which she was unfamiliar and which she had never used before.

In the case of Wilson v. Dowtin, 215 N.C. 547, 2 S.E. 2d 576, this Court said: “In entering or leaving premises, the visitor is bound to use the ordinary and customary place of ingress and egress, and if he *606 adopts some other way he becomes a mere licensee, and cannot recover for defects outside and not substantially adjacent to the regular way.” See also Cupita v. Carmel Country Club, 252 N.C. 346, 113 S.E. 2d 712.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.'

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

PER Cueiam.

The evidence introduced by the plaintiff in the trial below tends to show that the defendant maintains adequate paved driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and paved entrances to its apartment buildings, sufficient to accommodate its tenants and their visitors. The plaintiff, however, on the occasion complained of, chose to approach the premises of the defendant over the private property of an adjacent landowner, and to walk over an unlighted area with which she was unfamiliar and which she had never used before.

In the case of Wilson v. Dowtin, 215 N.C. 547, 2 S.E. 2d 576, this Court said: “In entering or leaving premises, the visitor is bound to use the ordinary and customary place of ingress and egress, and if he *606 adopts some other way he becomes a mere licensee, and cannot recover for defects outside and not substantially adjacent to the regular way.” See also Cupita v. Carmel Country Club, 252 N.C. 346, 113 S.E. 2d 712.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 235, 262 N.C. 604, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-kinston-housing-authority-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack