Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn
| Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. COA18-887,COA18-887 |
| Parties | Milton DRAUGHON, Sr., Plaintiff, v. EVENING STAR HOLINESS CHURCH OF DUNN, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Dafford Funeral Home, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
265 N.C.App. 164
828 S.E.2d 176
Milton DRAUGHON, Sr., Plaintiff,
v.
EVENING STAR HOLINESS CHURCH OF DUNN, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
Dafford Funeral Home, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.
No. COA18-887
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Filed: May 7, 2019
Brent Adams & Associates, by Gregory A. Posch and Brenton D. Adams, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Yates, McLamb & Weyher, by Sean T. Partrick, Raleigh, and John W. Graebe, for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee.
No brief filed by Third-Party Defendant.
INMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff Milton Draughon, Sr., ("Plaintiff") appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn (the "Church") on Plaintiff's negligence claims. Plaintiff argues that summary judgment was improper, asserting a genuine issue of material fact existed as to: (1) the presence
of a legal duty owed to him by the Church; and (2) his contributory negligence in falling on a set of stairs leading into the Church while carrying a casket. After careful review, we reverse the ruling of the trial court.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The record below indicates the following:
Plaintiff attended a funeral at the Church, located at Sampson Avenue in Dunn, North Carolina, on a sunny day in February of 2015. Before the service started, Plaintiff entered the Church sanctuary through an entrance facing Sampson Avenue. As Plaintiff and a church deacon were speaking, the minister who would be conducting the service approached and asked Plaintiff if he would be willing to help carry the deceased's casket into the sanctuary. Plaintiff declined. Some time later, an employee of the funeral home, Third-Party Defendant Dafford Funeral Home, Inc. ("Dafford"),1 asked Plaintiff to help carry the casket. Plaintiff reconsidered and agreed to help, as he felt physically capable of assisting and Dafford did not have enough employees on hand to carry the casket into the building.
Plaintiff followed the Dafford employee out of the sanctuary through a door facing U.S. Route 421, different than the door Plaintiff had entered earlier, and descended a set of concrete and brick stairs. Once outside, Plaintiff walked approximately 25 to 30 feet to the hearse containing the casket. Plaintiff joined three other men at the hearse, and the group carried the casket, without any apparent difficulty, to the bottom of the stairs Plaintiff had navigated moments earlier. They then began ascending the stairs, unhindered by the casket. Before reaching the entryway, Plaintiff, who was positioned on the front left side of the casket, tripped on the top step and injured his knees. The top step was approximately two-and-a-half inches taller than the preceding steps.
Plaintiff filed suit against the Church on 22 August 2017, alleging negligence, negligence per se , and res ipsa loquitur arising out of the stair's defective and dangerous condition, i.e. , the difference in height between the top step and the ones below it. In response, the Church filed a combined answer and third-party complaint against Dafford for contribution and indemnification, asserting by affirmative defense that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in failing to use reasonable care. Plaintiff, with leave of the trial court, filed an amended complaint on 5 March 2018.
The Church moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. The Church's motion argued, among other things, that Plaintiff possessed equal or superior knowledge of the alleged defective condition, having descended the stairs without issue moments before tripping. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition; he also filed an affidavit from an engineering expert attesting to the defect in the stairs. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Church's summary judgment motion on the grounds that Plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge of the open and obvious hazard and failed to exercise due care in navigating the steps. Plaintiff appeals.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that because he introduced sufficient evidence demonstrating genuine issues of material fact, his negligence claim should have survived summary judgment. The Church disagrees, asserting that: (1) Plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge of
the alleged defect so the Church did not owe him a duty of care; and (2) Plaintiff's contributory negligence caused him to trip. Reviewing the evidence and applicable law, we agree with Plaintiff and reverse the trial court.
A. Standard of Review
"[The] standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo." In re Will of Jones , 362 N.C. 569, 573, 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008). The party moving for summary judgment holds the burden of showing "there is no genuine issue of fact remaining for determination and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 282 N.C. 44, 51, 191 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1972) (citation omitted). We must construe the evidence introduced at summary judgment "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and with the benefit of all reasonable inferences." Jenkins v. Lake Montonia Club, Inc. , 125 N.C. App. 102, 104, 479 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997).
"Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases, even when there is no dispute as to the facts, because the issue of whether a party acted in conformity with the reasonable person standard is ordinarily an issue to be determined by a jury." Surrette v. Duke Power Co. , 78 N.C. App. 647, 650, 338 S.E.2d 129 (1986) (citation omitted). "Issues of contributory negligence, like those of ordinary negligence are rarely appropriate for summary judgment. Only where plaintiff's own negligence discloses contributory negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached is summary judgment to be granted." Jenkins , 125 N.C. App. at 104, 479 S.E.2d at 261 (citations omitted).
B. Duty to Warn
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff's evidence discloses a duty owed to him by the Church. Landowners "have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors." Bolick v. Bon Worth, Inc. , 150 N.C. App. 428, 430, 562 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (citing Barber v. Presbyterian Hosp. , 147 N.C. App. 86, 89, 555 S.E.2d 303, 306 (2001) ). This "reasonable care" requires landowners to "warn[ a lawful visitor] of hidden conditions and dangers of which the landowner has express or implied notice." Barber , 147 N.C. App. at 89, 555 S.E.2d at 306. That said, "a landowner need not warn of any ‘apparent hazards or circumstances of which the invitee has equal or superior knowledge.’ " Von Viczay v. Thoms , 140 N.C. App. 737, 739, 538 S.E.2d 629, 631 (2000) (quoting Jenkins , 125 N.C. App. at 105, 479 S.E.2d at 262 ).
The Church argues that Plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge of the stairs' condition because he had descended them without issue before later tripping on ascent, noting that this Court has upheld entry of summary judgment on premises liability claims where the plaintiffs had previously avoided or successfully navigated the hazards that later caused injury. Bolick , 150 N.C. App. at 429, 562 S.E.2d at 603 ; Von Viczay , 140 N.C. App. at 740, 538 S.E.2d at 631. Those cases are distinguishable.
In Bolick , a customer asked to use a store's bathroom. 150 N.C. App. at 428-29, 562 S.E.2d at 603. A store employee directed the customer to several steps leading to a slightly raised bathroom door. Id. The customer successfully traversed the stairs, which were lit by several light sources, and used the bathroom. Id. at 429, 562 S.E.2d at 603. When she exited, the customer fell down the stairs and injured herself; she later filed suit, averring that the step-down from the bathroom door constituted a hazardous condition. Id. On these facts, we held that summary judgment for the defendant store was proper, as "plaintiff had full knowledge of the condition of the doorway to the bathroom by virtue of having safely negotiated her way inside the bathroom moments before she fell." Id. at 431, 562 S.E.2d at 604.
Similarly, in Von Viczay , the plaintiff walked down an icy path to the front door of a home to attend a party. 140 N.C. App. at 737-78, 538 S.E.2d at 630. The plaintiff was able to observe the ice and snow that covered the ground and walkway, as they were well lit. Id. When the plaintiff later exited the home, she slipped and fell on the ice; because the plaintiff had seen the ice and already
successfully navigated the hazardous condition once before, we held she had failed to demonstrate the defendant owed her any duty. Id. at 740, 538 S.E.2d at 632.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn
...the top step caused plaintiff's fall, and whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn , ––– N.C.App. ––––, 828 S.E.2d 176, 179–81 (2019). The dissent claimed defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff was cont......
-
Dep't of Transp. v. Hutchinsons, LLC
... ... Gen. Stat. 1-294 (2017) ; Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc. , 301 N.C. 561, 580, 273 S.E.2d 247, ... ...