Smithson v. WT Grant Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Smithson v. WT Grant Company

153 S.E.2d 68, 269 N.C. 575, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1110

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 1, 1967

Docket33

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 68 (Smithson v. WT Grant Company) 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

Smithson v. WT Grant Company, 153 S.E.2d 68, 269 N.C. 575, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1110 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

*577 Per Curiam.

The defendant is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter its store for the purpose of making purchases, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Fox v. Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662. Plaintiff was an invitee to whom defendant owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. No inference of actionable negligence on the part of defendant arose from the mere fact that plaintiff fell on its premises as a result of slipping on an object in the aisle of defendant’s store. Graves v. Order of Elks, 268 N.C. 356, 150 S.E. 2d 522. Plaintiff’s evidence does not disclose that the object alleged to have caused her fall had been there any appreciable length of time, or that defendant in the exercise of due care could or should have known of its presence. Nor was there evidence tending to show defendant was responsible for its being there. Therefore, taking all of plaintiff’s evidence as true, and considering it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find no evidence of neglect of duty on the part of defendant proximately causing plaintiff’s injury.

Affirmed.

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

*577 Per Curiam.

The defendant is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter its store for the purpose of making purchases, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Fox v. Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662. Plaintiff was an invitee to whom defendant owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. No inference of actionable negligence on the part of defendant arose from the mere fact that plaintiff fell on its premises as a result of slipping on an object in the aisle of defendant’s store. Graves v. Order of Elks, 268 N.C. 356, 150 S.E. 2d 522. Plaintiff’s evidence does not disclose that the object alleged to have caused her fall had been there any appreciable length of time, or that defendant in the exercise of due care could or should have known of its presence. Nor was there evidence tending to show defendant was responsible for its being there. Therefore, taking all of plaintiff’s evidence as true, and considering it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find no evidence of neglect of duty on the part of defendant proximately causing plaintiff’s injury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 68, 269 N.C. 575, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithson-v-wt-grant-company-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack