King v. . Thackers, Inc.

178 S.E. 95, 207 N.C. 869, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 290
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 28, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 95 (King v. . Thackers, Inc.) 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
King v. . Thackers, Inc., 178 S.E. 95, 207 N.C. 869, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 290 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

Pee Oubjam.

On 10 May, 1932, the plaintiff was in a restaurant in the city of Charlotte, which was owned and operated by the defendant. She left the dining-room, where she had met a friend for dinner, and started to the rest room to wash her hands. While she was walking through the kitchen on her way to the rest room she slipped and fell, thereby injuring her arm. She testified that she was walking carefully. She said: “I noticed something on the floor. It was as slick as it could be. My feet flew from under me and I fell. I could not get up. Someone picked me up. Corn meal was on the floor — in heavy and light places. I was completely covered with corn meal when they picked me up. I noticed it at first, but did not notice what it was, but the floor was slick. Corn meal makes a floor slick.”

*870 There was no evidence tending to show why the corn meal was on the floor in the kitchen, or how long it had been there, but conceding that there was evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint (Bowden v. Kress, 198 N. C., 559, 152 S. E., 625, and Parker v. Tea Co., 201 N. C., 691, 161 S. E., 209), we are of opinion that all the evidence shows that the plaintiff by her own negligence contributed to her injuries. Clark v. Drug Co., 204 N. C., 628, 169 S. E., 217; Davis v. Jeffreys, 197 N. C., 712, 150 S. E., 488. For this reason there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit.

Affirmed.

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

Related

McDonald v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
177 F.2d 401 (Fourth Circuit, 1949)
Pratt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
12 S.E.2d 242 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Wilson v. . Dowtin
2 S.E.2d 576 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Mulford v. Cotton States Hotel Co.
197 S.E. 169 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Anderson v. Reidsville Amusement Co.
195 S.E. 386 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Williams v. . Stores Co., Inc.
184 S.E. 496 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Lee v. . Sears, Roebuck Co.
182 S.E. 493 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.E. 95, 207 N.C. 869, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-thackers-inc-nc-1935.