Bagwell v. Town of Brevard, 18
| Citation | 256 N.C. 465,124 S.E.2d 129 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,18 |
| Parties | Beulah Reid BAGWELL v. TOWN OF BREVARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
J. Bruce Morton and Robert T. Gash, Brevard, for plaintiff, appellant.
Ramsey, Hill & Smart, Brevard, for defendant, appellee.
The facts alleged, but not the pleader's legal conclusions, are deemed admitted when the sufficiency of a complaint is tested by a demurrer. Whether the admitted facts constitute negligence is a question of law.
Plaintiff's allegations describe the alleged defect and her fall as follows: (1) '(T)he said sidewalk was constructed of large concrete sections, approximately six feet square.' (2) '(O)ne of the concrete sections was elevated approximately one inch above the adjacent concrete section.' (3) When plaintiff's 'left foot came to rest along the length of the irregular portion between the concrete sections,' the 'unequal pressure on the bottom of the plaintiff's foot' caused her ankle to turn, 'throwing the plaintiff with great force down to the pavement.'
The legal duty of defendant, a municipal corporation, is to exercise ordinary care to maintain its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for travel by those using them in a proper manner and with due care. It is not an insurer of the safety of its sidewalks.
Here, the alleged defect or irregularity is a difference in elevation of approximately one inch between two adjacent concrete sections of the sidewalk. Defendant's failure to correct this slight irregularity did not constitute a breach of its said legal duty. Hence, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. Duke
...sustained because the complaint affirmatively disclosed that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant. Bagwell v. Brevard, 256 N.C. 465, 124 S.E.2d 129; Gillikin v. Springle, 254 N.C. 240, 118 S.E.2d 611; Turner v. Gastonia City Board of Education, 250 N.C. 456, 109 S.E.2d......
-
Desmond v. City of Charlotte
...and the plaintiff did not see the irregularity before the fall. Id. at 350, 226 S.E.2d at 858. Our Supreme Court in Bagwell v. Brevard, 256 N.C. 465, 124 S.E.2d 129 (1962), held that plaintiff did not allege actionable negligence on the part of the town when the change in the sidewalk was a......
-
Pulley v. Rex Hosp.
...consisting of hole ten inches by three inches, filled to sidewalk level with dirt, sand, and trash); Bagwell v. Town of Brevard, 256 N.C. 465, 466, 124 S.E.2d 129, 130 (1962) (no breach of duty in failing to correct "slight irregularity" consisting of one-inch difference in elevation betwee......
-
Jackson v. City of Clinton, No. COA03-933 (NC 5/18/2004)
...held that minor defects in sidewalks do not represent a breach of duty and cannot support a claim of negligence. In Bagwell v. Brevard, 256 N.C. 465, 124 S.E.2d 129 (1962), our Supreme Court held that where the alleged defect consisted of "a difference in elevation of approximately one inch......