Benton v. United Bank Bldg. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1944
• Docket Number: 666.
• Citation: 28 S.E.2d 491,223 N.C. 809
• Parties: BENTON v. UNITED BANK BLDG. CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E.2d 491

223 N.C. 809

BENTON v. UNITED BANK BLDG. CO. et al.

No. 666.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 12, 1944

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendants.

It is alleged, and there was evidence tending to prove, that the defendant building company owned a large twelve-story bank building on the northeast corner of Elm and Washington Streets in the City of Greensboro, and that the defendant stores corporation leased from its co-defendant a store room in said bank building located on the ground floor and in the northwest corner of said building and operated a cigar store therein that there was a door opening from the inside of the main entrance lobby of the building to the store room; that there was a difference in the elevation of the floor of the main entrance lobby and the floor of the store room, that of the store room being six inches lower than that of the lobby that there was a step down from the lobby to the store room immediately at the door leading from the lobby to the store room; that the plaintiff, intending to enter the cigar store from the lobby for the purpose of purchasing a watch wrist band, approached the door, pushed it open and stepped into the cigar store, and as she stepped in she fell to the floor from which fall she received injuries.

It is alleged and contended by the plaintiff that the defendants were actionably negligent in that they failed to properly light the step down from the lobby to the store room and failed to give the plaintiff and the public proper warning of the existing conditions surrounding said step down. The defendants deny these allegations, and plead in bar of plaintiff's recovery her contributory negligence in failing to exercise due care in the use of the step down in entering the store room.

When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case, the defendants lodged motions for judgments as in case of nonsuit (C.S. § 567), which motions were allowed, and from judgments, predicated on this ruling, dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed, assigning error.

Herbert S. Falk, of Greensboro, for plaintiff, appellant.

Frank P. Hobgood and Benj. T. Ward, both of Greensboro, for United Bank Building Co., appellee.

Sapp & Sapp, of Greensboro, for United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation, appellee.

SCHENCK, Justice.

It is not contended that the construction of the floor level of the store room six inches below the floor level of the main lobby of the building, from which the door led to the store room constituted negligence. The negligence stressed in the brief being confined to the allegations of failure to adequately light the step down immediately at the door between the lobby and the store room, and the failure to give warning or notice of such step down, which the plaintiff in her brief denominates as a 'stumbling block.'

Such light as was in the store room from the sun was diffused light, since such light could enter only from the two doors opening onto the west and the north side of the room and the sun had not reached its zenith at the time of the plaintiff's fall, about 11 or 11:30 o'clock, A. M. The store room was lighted by six overhead or ceiling lamps with underslung globes, each of which was of 200 watts, one of which lights was about six feet from the door between the lobby and the store room and another about 15 feet from that door. There were no windows in the store room to admit sun light. The floors of the lobby and of the store room were of different material, different in color and different in construction. There was no obstruction to the entrance into the store room through the door between it and the lobby. There was no defect in the lighting in the lobby, it being in all respects similar to that in the store room. If there were decorations (the evidence is in conflict) on the doors on the west and north side of the store room, such decorations could have cast no shadows from the sun into the store room owing to the position of the sun in the sky at that time of day with reference to the location of the building.

The plaintiff's testimony is to the effect that she entered the store room from the lobby to purchase a watch wrist band and stated, 'When you have your mind on shopping, it is quite different. I had my mind on shopping,' she 'could see the floor through the door;' she 'was looking directly in front,' she 'could see clearly into the store'; plaintiff further testified that if she had taken the time, opened the door and looked she could have seen the step down; that she did not have the...