Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.

108 S.E.2d 434, 250 N.C. 269, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 632

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1959

Docket522

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 S.E.2d 434 (Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.) 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

Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co., 108 S.E.2d 434, 250 N.C. 269, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 632 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

HiggiNS, J.

Few, if .any, questions of law are presented to this Court with more frequency than the sufficiency .of evidence in a civil ease to survive a motion for nonsuit. Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747; Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E. 2d 154; McFalls v. Smith, 249 N.C. 123, 105 S.E. 2d 297; Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E. 2d 451.

The evidence in this case establishes the fact that plaintiff wás an invitee upon the premises under the control ■ of the defendant)' Ordinarily, a proprietor of a store or business establishment is'npijah insurer -of the safety of his invitees. He owes them the..duty to exercise ordinary care to keep .the premises in 'a reasonably safe condition and to give warning or notice of hidden perils or unsafe.conditions insofar as they can be ascertained by reasonable inspection).and.supervision. Hood v. Coach Co., supra; Thompson v. DeVonde, 235 N.C. 520, 70 S.E. 2d 424; Coston v. Hotel, 231 N.C. 546, 57 S.E. 2d 793; Ross v. Drug Store, 225 N.C. 226, 34 S.E. 2d 64; Griggs v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 N.C. 166, 10 S.E. 2d 623; Bohannon v. Stores Co., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356.

The plaintiff’s evidence in the case showed'two small holes'in the platform prior to his injury. One was a knothole at-.the east end of the platform; the other was in the center. It was not over half an'inch *272 and went all the way through the hoard. He was familiar with the platform .and knew of these defeats. They did not'cause his fall. He fell -off the west side where his heel broke partially through one of the 'cypress hoards. Before his fall he saw where .he was stepping and saw nothing wrong. His. witness, .an adverse one to be sure, but nevertheless his witness, testified that in the .Summer he had inspected the platform from the bottom and the boards 'appeared sound. This witness saw no holes in the platform except the two — one in the middle and the knothole on the east end. However, for the purpose of a non-suit, we must assume the plaintiff’s evidence to be correct, and that his fall was caused by his heel crushing into a board at the west side. This board looked sound to him at the time he stepped on it on February 4. It had looked sound from the bottom when his witness inspected it the previous Summer. The unsound .condition was in the center of the board and did not show on either the upper or lower ¡surface. The evidence is insufficient to show that a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the hidden defect which caused plaintiff’s fall. Consequently the evidence was insufficient to make out a case. The judgment oí involuntary nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

HiggiNS, J.

Few, if .any, questions of law are presented to this Court with more frequency than the sufficiency .of evidence in a civil ease to survive a motion for nonsuit. Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747; Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E. 2d 154; McFalls v. Smith, 249 N.C. 123, 105 S.E. 2d 297; Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E. 2d 451.

The evidence in this case establishes the fact that plaintiff wás an invitee upon the premises under the control ■ of the defendant)' Ordinarily, a proprietor of a store or business establishment is'npijah insurer -of the safety of his invitees. He owes them the..duty to exercise ordinary care to keep .the premises in 'a reasonably safe condition and to give warning or notice of hidden perils or unsafe.conditions insofar as they can be ascertained by reasonable inspection).and.supervision. Hood v. Coach Co., supra; Thompson v. DeVonde, 235 N.C. 520, 70 S.E. 2d 424; Coston v. Hotel, 231 N.C. 546, 57 S.E. 2d 793; Ross v. Drug Store, 225 N.C. 226, 34 S.E. 2d 64; Griggs v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 N.C. 166, 10 S.E. 2d 623; Bohannon v. Stores Co., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356.

The plaintiff’s evidence in the case showed'two small holes'in the platform prior to his injury. One was a knothole at-.the east end of the platform; the other was in the center. It was not over half an'inch *272 and went all the way through the hoard. He was familiar with the platform .and knew of these defeats. They did not'cause his fall. He fell -off the west side where his heel broke partially through one of the 'cypress hoards. Before his fall he saw where .he was stepping and saw nothing wrong. His. witness, .an adverse one to be sure, but nevertheless his witness, testified that in the .Summer he had inspected the platform from the bottom and the boards 'appeared sound. This witness saw no holes in the platform except the two — one in the middle and the knothole on the east end. However, for the purpose of a non-suit, we must assume the plaintiff’s evidence to be correct, and that his fall was caused by his heel crushing into a board at the west side. This board looked sound to him at the time he stepped on it on February 4. It had looked sound from the bottom when his witness inspected it the previous Summer. The unsound .condition was in the center of the board and did not show on either the upper or lower ¡surface. The evidence is insufficient to show that a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the hidden defect which caused plaintiff’s fall. Consequently the evidence was insufficient to make out a case. The judgment oí involuntary nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E.2d 434, 250 N.C. 269, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spell-v-smith-douglas-co-nc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack