Batson v. City Laundry Co

• Decision Date: 12 July 1933
• Docket Number: No. 287.,287.
• Citation: 205 N. C. 93,170 S.E. 136
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BATSON. v. CITY LAUNDRY CO.

170 S.E. 136

205 N. C. 93

BATSON.

v.CITY LAUNDRY CO.

No. 287.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 12, 1933.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Devin, Judge.

Action by Hazel Batson against the City Laundry Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 202 N. C. 560, 163 S. E. 600.

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, and instituted this suit to recover for personal injury sustained on or about June 6, 1928. The defendant operates a laundry, and there is a flight of steps from the first floor to the second floor of the building, consisting of about twenty-seven steps. The stairway is between two walls of the building; that is, the walls come up on each side or end of the steps. A witness for plaintiff said: "You could stand in the center of the steps and touch any side wall." The width of the tread of each step was from ten to twelve inches. The steps were constructed of boards an inch or an inch and a quarter in thickness. Plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show that the edges of the steps were worn as a result of drawing ham per baskets of laundry up and down. The plaintiff detailed the facts and circumstances of her injury as follows: "On the afternoon of June 6, I was sent up in the laundry room to bring down some packages to be delivered to the office and in returning I was about midway of the steps, and I stepped in a slick worn place that caused my feet to slip from under me, and I stumbled two or three steps trying to regain my balance, and I saw that I was going head first, and I threw myself back, grabbing at the wall to keep from falling, but there were no guard rails to grab by, and I was hurled on my hack down on the steps, and I slid down lacking about two steps from the bottom, and there I was picked up by the bookkeeper and one of the drivers. There were no guard rails, nothing but the plastered wall on both sides. I am not much of a judge of distance, but I imagine the steps are between five and six feet wide. * * * The edges of the steps were worn off round and slick. I was going down kind of on the ball of my foot and it slipped out from unller me. * * * I turned my ankle. * * * I put the packages on my arm and put the other over them to keep from losing them. If there had been a guard rail there I don't know which arm I would have used. * * * I carried the packages on my left arm. I said the other arm was on top. It was over them. Putting both arms over it would make a double armful. I guess I did say that I had a double armful. I had the packages in both arms. * * * I did say in order to prevent going several times 1 brought those many packages. What I meant I could have brought one down at a time and not as many as I did have. * * * I told Judge Barnhill at a former trial that I could not see where I was stepping. I meant I was not looking right down at the step I was stepping on. I could see the steps ahead of me. but was not particularly noticing the one I was stepping on after I left the top. I saw the way was clear. * * * I had never noticed any particular defect in the steps, nothing more than, I reckon, they were worn, from going up and down them. I do not remember they were worn particularly by going up and down them. * * * I knew that there were no handrails on the stairs for three years before I was hurt. * * * "

There was evidence that, after the plaintiff was hurt on the 6th day of June, 1928, she continued to work at the laundry until the 27th day of February, 1931. In August, after the plaintiff was injured in June, she took an...