Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | 668 |
| Parties | BARNES v. HOTEL O. HENRY CORPORATION. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
This is a civil action to recover for personal injuries, which the plaintiff alleges she sustained on 29 November, 1946, as the result of a fall caused by a heavy coat of wax on the composition and marble floor in the vestibule at the entrance to the elevators on the third floor of the O. Henry Hotel, in Greensboro, N. C.
The plaintiff testified she was a regular guest of the hotel having lived there for nearly twelve years. She came out of her room on the above date, about 4:00 p. m., and walked over the strip of carpet in the hall to the vestibule or elevator entrance. When she got to the elevator entrance she looked at the whole area and saw nothing out of the ordinary. As she put her left foot on the marble strip her left heel shot out from under her and it went in sort of 'diagonal position to the left * * *. When I got myself up in a little bit, I looked around to see what happened and I saw what looked to me like a deep furrow from where my left heel had struck the marble, * * * and I punched the bell and went down on the elevator * * *, got off the elevator, and stopped and talked to Mr. Padgett, the assistant manager of the hotel, at the desk. He then went back upstairs with me. When we got back upstairs I showed him the condition I have just stated to the jury, including the skid mark. * * * He said, 'You go on to your room until the doctor comes, and I'll have this cleaned up right away'.'
The plaintiff further testified that she had gone over the marble and composition floor in this vestibule probably more than seven thousand times; that she had been by this place three four, five or six times a day for more than ten years; that at this particular time when she approached it, its appearance was no different than at other times, insofar as she could see.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was granted and the plaintiff appeals and assigns error.
King & King and R. M. Robinson, all of Greensboro, for plaintiff.
Smith Wharton, Sapp & Moore, of Greensboro, for defendant.
Did the Court below commit error in granting the defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit? We do not think so.
An innkeeper is not an insurer of the personal safety of his guests. He is only required to exercise due care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give his guests or invitees warning of any hidden peril. Schwingle v. Kellenberger, 217 N.C. 577, 8 S.E.2d 918; Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, 205 N.C. 758, 172 S.E. 371; Jones v. Bland, 182 N.C. 70, 108 S.E. 334, 16 A.L.R. 1383; Patrick v. Springs, 154 N.C. 270, 70 S.E. 395, Ann. Cas.1912A, 1209; 43 C.J.S., Innkeepers, s 22, page 1173; 28 Amer.Jur., Innkeepers, Sec. 56, p. 578.
The appellant is relying on the rule of liability stated in Anderson v. Reidsville Amusement Co., 213 N.C. 130, 195 S.E. 386; Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 201 N.C. 691, 161 S.E. 209; and Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co., 198 N.C. 559, 152 S.E. 625. An examination of these decisions will disclose that in each case the owner of the store or theatre had applied oil, grease, wax or some similar substance to the floor in an improper unusual or negligent manner, causing the patron or invitee to fall.
In the instant case the plaintiff alleges there was a heavy coat of wax on the floor where she fell, which had been applied uniformly and smoothly over the entire floor of the vestibule or entrance to the elevators. yat the trial, however, she offered no evidence to show what the substance was on the floor or what caused her to fall. Once in her testimony she did state that after she fell she looked around to see what happened and saw what looked like a 'deep furrow' from where her left heel had struck the marble, but at other times she referred to the mark on the floor as 'the skid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur does not apply to injuries resulting from slipping or falling on a waxed or oiled floor. Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., supra; Pratt Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 218 N.C. 732, 12 S.E.2d 242; Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 201 N.C. 691, 161......
-
Waugh v. Duke Corporation
...in the defendants' motel for the first time. An innkeeper is required to give warning of such hidden perils. Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E.2d 180 (1949). His duty to give such warning is increased when infant guests are present. Baker et ux. v. Dallas Hotel Co., The d......
-
Hedgepeth v. Rose's Stores, Inc.
...created or how long it had been there. Hinson v. Cato's, Inc., 271 N.C. 738, 157 S.E.2d 537 (1967). See also Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E.2d 180 (1949). We think that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of showing that the cause of her fall was due to the neg......
-
Dawson v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...office. Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E.2d 717; Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, 230 N.C. 694, 55 S.E.2d 493; Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E.2d 180; Livingston v. Friend Bros., 302 Mass. 602, 29 N.E.2d 193. 'The fact that a floor is waxed does not constitute eviden......