Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc.

154 S.E.2d 483, 270 N.C. 447, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1375

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 24, 1967

Docket769

StatusPublished

Cited by48 cases

This text of 154 S.E.2d 483 (Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, 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

Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 154 S.E.2d 483, 270 N.C. 447, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1375 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PkR Cueiam.

Conceding that plaintiff was an invitee on the property of defendant, the defendant was not an' insurer of her safety. Its duty was to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises which plaintiff was to use in a reasonably safe condition, so as not to expose her unnecessarily to danger, and to give warning of hidden conditions and dangers of which it had knowledge, express or implied. Waters v. Harris, 250 N.C. 701, 110 S.E. 2d 283. However, defendant was under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or of a condition of which the plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge. Harris v. Department Stores Co., 247 N.C. 195, 100 S.E. 2d 323.

There is plenary evidence that plaintiff had full knowledge of the freezing and icy condition of the area. The danger created by this *449 condition was obvious, and plaintiff’s evidence presents no facts from which it can be inferred that defendant had more knowledge than plaintiff of the alleged dangerous or unsafe condition. Thus, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, which we must do on motion to nonsuit, Hudson v. Transit Co., 250 N.C. 435, 108 S.E. 2d 900, we hold that the evidence shows no actionable negligence on the part of defendant.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

PkR Cueiam.

Conceding that plaintiff was an invitee on the property of defendant, the defendant was not an' insurer of her safety. Its duty was to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises which plaintiff was to use in a reasonably safe condition, so as not to expose her unnecessarily to danger, and to give warning of hidden conditions and dangers of which it had knowledge, express or implied. Waters v. Harris, 250 N.C. 701, 110 S.E. 2d 283. However, defendant was under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or of a condition of which the plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge. Harris v. Department Stores Co., 247 N.C. 195, 100 S.E. 2d 323.

There is plenary evidence that plaintiff had full knowledge of the freezing and icy condition of the area. The danger created by this *449 condition was obvious, and plaintiff’s evidence presents no facts from which it can be inferred that defendant had more knowledge than plaintiff of the alleged dangerous or unsafe condition. Thus, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, which we must do on motion to nonsuit, Hudson v. Transit Co., 250 N.C. 435, 108 S.E. 2d 900, we hold that the evidence shows no actionable negligence on the part of defendant.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E.2d 483, 270 N.C. 447, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrenn-v-hillcrest-convalescent-home-inc-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack