Gaskill v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 693SC529
| Decision Date | 17 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 693SC529,693SC529 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Bertie Lewis GASKILL v. The GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Inc. |
Thomas S. Bennett, Morehead City, for plaintiff appellant.
Harvey Hamilton, Jr., Morehead City, for defendant appellee.
A customer entering a store during business hours attains the status of an invitee of the proprietor. Morgan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 266 N.C. 221, 145 S.E.2d 877. This relationship, however, does not make the proprietor an insurer of his customers safety while on his premises. Routh v. Hudson-belk Co., 263 N.C. 112, 139 S.E.2d 1. Any liability on the part of the proprietor for injuries suffered by his customers attaches only for such injuries as result from his actionable negligence. Lee v. H. L. Green & Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E.2d 33. The proprietor does owe to his customers the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain in a reasonably safe condition those portions of his premises which he may expect they will use during business hours, and to give warning of hidden peril or unsafe conditions insofar as these can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision. Dawson v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 265 N.C. 691, 144 S.E.2d 831. If the unsafe condition is created by third parties or by an independent agency, a showing must be made that it had existed for such length of time that the store proprietor knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of its existence in time to have removed the danger or given warning of its presence. No inference of negligence on the part of the store proprietor arises from the mere fact of a customer's fall on the floor of his store during business hours, the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur not being applicable. Hinson v. Cato's, Inc., 271 N.C. 738, 157 S.E.2d 537; Raper v. McCrory-McLellan Corp., 259 N.C. 199, 130 S.E.2d 281. See: Annotation, 62 A.L.R.2d 6.
Considering plaintiff's evidence in the light of these well-established principles, we are of the opinion that judgment of nonsuit in the present case was proper. taking plaintiff's evidence as true, considering it in the light most favorable to her, and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in passing upon a ruling on motion for monsuit, Clarke v. Holman, 274 N.C. 425, 163 S.E.2d 783, all that has been shown is that on a rainy afternoon defendant allowed water to accumulate on the asphalt tile floor immediately inside the entrance to its store; that plaintiff entered the store as a customer; and that plaintiff there fell and was injured. In at least two respects this showing is insufficient to impose liability on defendant: First, plaintiff's evidence failed to show that defendant was in anywise negligent or had failed to exercise ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for its customers; and second, plaintiff's evidence failed to show that her fall and injuries were caused by any slippery condition of the floor or by any other dangerous condition on defendant's premises.
The proprietor of a business establishment is not required to take extraordinary precautions for the safety of his invitees, the measure of his duty in this respect being to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 63 (121), p. 888.
In Dawson v. Carolina Power & Light Co., supra, a customer-invitee sued the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on a wet or damp floor inside defendant's office. In approving judgment of nonsuit, the Court, speaking through Parker, J. (Later C.J.) said:
'No inference of actionable negligence on defendant's part arises from the mere fact that on a rainy day plaintiff suffered personal injuries from a fall occasioned by slipping on some dampness or on 'a little mud' and 'a little bit of water' just inside the door of defendant's office. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunter v. U.S.
...North Carolina Court of Appeals specifically recognized this distinction between Dawson and Powell in Gaskill v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 6 N.C.App. 690, 171 S.E.2d 95 (1969). In Gaskill, the court sustained dismissal prior to trial of plaintiff's slip and fall complaint because th......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. ADM Mill. Co.
...Defendant was not required to take extraordinary precautions for the safety of its invitees, Gaskill v. A. and P. Tea Co., 6 N.C.App. 690, 694, 171 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1969), or to take precautions that would render the operation of its business impractical, Hedrick v. Tigniere, 267 N.C. 62, 67,......
-
Gladstein v. South Square Associates, 7814SC107
...injury by removing the water or warning plaintiff of its existence. That decision was followed by this Court in Gaskill v. A. and P. Tea Co., 6 N.C.App. 690, 171 S.E.2d 95 (1969). In that case judgment of nonsuit was affirmed where the only evidence was that water had accumulated on a tile ......
-
Faircloth v. US
...323 F.2d 117, 119 (4th Cir.1963). A customer's fall does not create an inference of negligence. Gaskill v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 6 N.C.App. 690, 171 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1969). In order to prevail at trial, the plaintiffs must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she ......