Gordon v. Sprott

• Decision Date: 01 March 1950
• Docket Number: No. 98,98
• Citation: Gordon v. Sprott, 231 N.C. 472, 57 S.E.2d 785 (N.C. 1950)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: GORDON, v. SPROTT et al.

Page 785

57 S.E.2d 785

231 N.C. 472

GORDON, v.SPROTT et al.

No. 98

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 1950

Sanford W. Brown, James W. Regan, Asheville, for plaintiffappellee.

Smathers & Meekins, Asheville, for defendantsappellants.

WINBORNE, Justice.

The assignments of error presented on this appeal pivot on the exceptions to the rulings of the trial court in denying defendants' motions, aptly made, for judgment as of nonsuit.If it be conceded that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that defendants were negligent in the respects alleged, it is clear that, as a matter of law, upon plaintiff's own testimony, she was guilty of negligence which was at least a proximate cause of the injury of which she complains.If a plaintiff's negligence is one of the proximate causes of the injury, it is sufficient to defeat recovery.It need not be the sole proximate cause.Moore v. Boone, N.C., 57 S.E.2d 783;Fawley v. Bobo, 231 N.C. 203, 56 S.E.2d 419;Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E.2d 251;Parkway Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E.2d 623, and numerous other cases.

Moreover, 'In general a theater patron who was injured in a darkened theater must have exercised ordinary care for his own safety, and if he failed to do so he cannot recover notwithstanding the negligence of the theater operator.'143 A.L.R. 61, Annotation III(a).

And 'where a person sui juris knows of a dangerous condition and voluntarily goes into the place of danger, he is guilty of contributory negligence, which will bar his recovery. 'Dunnevant v. Southern R. R., 167 N.C. 232, 83 S.E. 347, 348;Groome v. Statesville, 207 N.C. 538, 177 S.E. 638.

Applying these principles to the case in hand, and bearing in mind the allegations of negligence, limited to lack of light and lighting facilities, upon which she bases her cause, it is seen: Plaintiff voluntarily went to the balcony of the theatre.When she reached there, she'knew how to go' because she'had been there before',--twice, she says.The condition of the balcony was known to her, though she had not 'sat in that seat before'.She knew that the rear row of seats was on an elevated plane, for, in entering, she says 'I got up that little elevation all right '.Again, she says, 'I knew there was a place there because I stepped up '.And when she entered the balcony she noticed 'there was no light', and before she fell she noticed 'there was no light'.But in coming out it was light enough for her to...