Frendlich v. Vaughan's Foods of Henderson, Inc., No. 829SC800
| Docket Nº | No. 829SC800 |
| Citation | 307 S.E.2d 412, 64 N.C.App. 332 |
| Case Date | October 04, 1983 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 412
v.
VAUGHAN'S FOODS OF HENDERSON, INC.
Stainback, Ellis & Satterwhite by Kermit W. Ellis, Jr., Henderson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patterson, Dilthey, Clay, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog by D. James Jones, Jr., Raleigh, and Hight, Faulkner, Hight & Fleming by Lee A. Faulkner, Henderson for defendant-appellee.
Page 414
JOHNSON, Judge.
The question presented for review is whether summary judgment for defendant was proper. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it was.
On a motion for summary judgment, the question before the Court is whether the pleadings, discovery documents and affidavits, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, support a finding that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c); Stanley v. Walker, 55 N.C.App. 377, 285 S.E.2d 297 (1982); Patterson v. Reid, 10 N.C.App. 22, 178 S.E.2d 1 (1970).
[64 N.C.App. 335] The moving party must show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, either by demonstrating the non-existence of an essential element of each claim or by presenting a defense to plaintiff's claims as a matter of law. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 251 S.E.2d 419 (1979); Tolbert v. Tea Co., 22 N.C.App. 491, 206 S.E.2d 816 (1974). If the material before the court at the summary judgment hearing would require a directed verdict for defendant at trial, defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Whitaker v. Blackburn, 47 N.C.App. 144, 266 S.E.2d 763 (1980). While summary judgment is generally not appropriate in negligence cases, it may be appropriate when it appears that there can be no recovery for plaintiff even if the facts as alleged by plaintiff are taken as true. Id.; Cox v. Haworth and Cox v. Haworth, 54 N.C.App. 328, 283 S.E.2d 392 (1981).
A prima facie case of negligence liability is alleged when a plaintiff shows that: defendant owed her a duty of care; defendant breached that duty; the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and damages resulted from the injury. Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94, 295 S.E.2d 602 (1982). Taking all the facts alleged by plaintiff as true, we conclude that defendant has shown that it has not breached any duty owed to plaintiff.
The duty a storekeeper owes to his business invitees is well stated in Garner v. Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461 (1959). A storekeeper has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the approaches and entrances to his store in a reasonably safe condition and to warn his customers of any hidden dangers or unsafe conditions of which it knew or in the exercise of reasonable supervision should have known. A storekeeper is not an insurer of the safety of his customers, and is liable only for injuries resulting from negligence on his part. He is under no duty to warn his customers of a condition which is obvious.
We also find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chelsea Amanda Brooke Cobb By v. Town of Blowing Rock, COA09–1443.
...conditions existed which might have distracted the attention of one walking on the sidewalk. See Frendlich v. Vaughan's Foods, 64 N.C.App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1983).Id. at 706, 392 S.E.2d at 384. The Court also noted that a reasonable juror, in considering whether the defendant b......
-
Novack v. Kosciuszko, COA19-383
...eyes to see. Her safe passage from the entrance of the rest room to the toilet is an indubitable fact."); Frendlich v. Vaughan’s Foods , 64 N.C. App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1983) (holding that summary judgment was proper because "the mere presence of a double step is insufficient to......
-
Pulley v. Rex Hosp., 387A89
...conditions existed which might have distracted the attention of one walking on the sidewalk. See Frendlich v. Vaughan's Foods, 64 N.C.App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 Upon its review of the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that: Ms. Pulley's own account of the conditions surrounding......
-
Warfield v. Hicks, 8710SC970
...N.C.App. 12] based on its finding as to whether a substantial portion of the work would have to be undone. See Stiles at 331, 307 S.E.2d at 412; LaGasse v. Gardner, 60 N.C.App. 165, 169-70, 298 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1982). Consequently, upon retrial, the jury should be allowed to determine the p......
-
Chelsea Amanda Brooke Cobb By v. Town of Blowing Rock, No. COA09–1443.
...conditions existed which might have distracted the attention of one walking on the sidewalk. See Frendlich v. Vaughan's Foods, 64 N.C.App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1983).Id. at 706, 392 S.E.2d at 384. The Court also noted that a reasonable juror, in considering whether the defendant b......
-
Novack v. Kosciuszko, No. COA19-383
...eyes to see. Her safe passage from the entrance of the rest room to the toilet is an indubitable fact."); Frendlich v. Vaughan’s Foods , 64 N.C. App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1983) (holding that summary judgment was proper because "the mere presence of a double step is insufficient to......
-
Pulley v. Rex Hosp., No. 387A89
...conditions existed which might have distracted the attention of one walking on the sidewalk. See Frendlich v. Vaughan's Foods, 64 N.C.App. 332, 337, 307 S.E.2d 412, 415 Upon its review of the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that: Ms. Pulley's own account of the conditions surrounding......
-
Warfield v. Hicks, No. 8710SC970
...N.C.App. 12] based on its finding as to whether a substantial portion of the work would have to be undone. See Stiles at 331, 307 S.E.2d at 412; LaGasse v. Gardner, 60 N.C.App. 165, 169-70, 298 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1982). Consequently, upon retrial, the jury should be allowed to determine the p......