Case v. Cato's of N. C., Inc.
Decision Date | 23 March 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 237,237 |
Citation | 252 N.C. 224,113 S.E.2d 320 |
Parties | Barbara E. CASE v. CATO'S OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Carpenter & Webb, by William B. Webb, Charlotte, for defendant, appellant.
Leon Olive and W. Faison Barnes, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.
The evidence disclosed the accident occurred on Saturday afternoon, May 31, 1958, in the defendant's ladies wearing apparel and accessories store in Mount Airy. At the time of her fall and injuries the plaintiff was one of 15, 20, or more customers in the store. The main store room is approximately 50 feet long and 20 feet wide. Along the walls, throughout most of its length, racks were maintained on which were displayed coats and dresses. Each garment was on a separate dress hanger with the hook over a long metal rod parallel to the wall. In the middle of the floor there was a display counter, about four feet high, for accessories. On either side of this counter there was a narrow aisle, about five feet wide, extending from the front to a point near the rear. In the rear, to the left of the center, was located the cashier's desk. To its right was a small clothes rack containing ladies coats and dresses. The customers walked up and down the two aisles to examine coats and dresses on the hangers near the walls and the accessories on the counter in the center.
The plaintiff testified:
The hanger was described as being about three-eighths-inch thick, 18 inches wide, curved, with a metal hook at the apex. The garment hanger, at the time plaintiff stepped on it, was partly concealed under the clothes rack and partly exposed in the passageway. The plaintiff's evidence disclosed the tile or terrazzo floor had been waxed the previous night. It was 'clean and slick.' The evidence also disclosed that the store maintained a small rack near the cashier's desk which was provided for garment hangers not in use.
Decision on this appeal turns on the question whether the evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to permit a reasonable inference the defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff in the manner alleged. Admittedly the plaintiff was an invitee in the defendant's store. It is likewise admitted she fell on the garment hanger and as a result of the fall sustained injury.
The evidence, in its most favorable aspect to the plaintiff, fails to show the floor was negligently constructed, or that its previous waxing was other than in the usual and customary manner with materials approved and in general use. There is a total lack of evidence of any accumulation of wax on the floor at the place where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hemmen v. Clark's Restaurant Enterprises
...159 Neb. 142, 65 N.W.2d 382 (1954). Compare Evans v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 223 Md. 235, 164 A.2d 273 (1960); Case v. Cato's of North Carolina, Inc., 252 N.C. 224, 113 S.E.2d 320 (1960); Sherlock v. Strouss-Hirshberg Co., 132 Ohio St. 35, 4 N.E.2d 912 (1936). See also Lehman v. The Great Atlant......
-
Blandshaw v. State
... ... When such a hearing has been so demanded the case shall not be transmitted to the court of general sessions or submitted to the grand jury until the ... ...
-
Grady v. J. C. Penney Co., 316
...of hidden perils and unsafe conditions insofar as can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision. Case v. Cato's of North Carolina, Inc., 252 N.C. 224, 113 S.E.2d 320. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in that: (1) The stairway and landing were without proper light......
-
Norris v. Belk's Dept. Store of Dunn, N. C., Inc., 528
...care should have known, of its existence in time to have removed the danger or given proper warning of its presence. Case v. Cato's Inc., 252 N.C. 224, 113 S.E.2d 320; Powell v. Deifells, Inc., 251 N.C. 596, 112 S.E.2d 56. 'The length of time for which a dangerous condition in a store must ......