Johnson v. Meyer's Co., 604

• Decision Date: 22 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 604,604
• Citation: 98 S.E.2d 315,246 N.C. 310
• Parties: Billie B. JOHNSON v. The MEYER'S COMPANY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 315

98 S.E.2d 315

246 N.C. 310

Billie B. JOHNSON v. The MEYER'S COMPANY.

No. 604

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 22, 1957

E. L. Alston, Jr., Greensboro, for plaintiff, appellant.

Armistead W. Sapp, Greensboro, for defendant, appellee.

PARKER, Justice.

The defendant owns a large department store in the city of Greensboro, fronting on South Elm and South Greene Streets. It also maintains on South Greene Street, adjacent to the entrance of its store on that street, a parking lot for automobiles for the use and convenience of its customers. On this parking lot, and immediately adjacent to South Greene Street, the defendant had erected a large advertising sign.

The allegations of negligence in the complaint are in essence these: The defendant failed to exercise due care in the erection, securing and maintenance of the large sign in a manner so as to prevent the same from falling, and that the defendant knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that the sign as erected and maintained was unsafe and a danger to persons using the adjacent street. As plaintiff was walking on the street she heard a loud noise, and the sign fell over and upon her covering the entire sidewalk. That she is informed, believes and so alleges that the cause of the sign falling was due to a customer of defendant on the parking lot backing his automobile into and against the sign, which was totally unprotected against such an act. That defendant knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that such an act was likely to occur, by reason of the insecure anchorage of the sign and the defendant permitting and directing its employees to park automobiles near the sign. That plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that an employee of defendant, whose name is unknown to her, backed a car up to the sign, left it in reverse gear, failed to inform the owner thereof, and the owner of the car, whose name is unknown to her, proceeded to knock over the sign.

Plaintiff's evidence shows these facts: On the night of 17 July 1954 she had been shopping in the defendant's store. It closed at 9:00 p. m. About three minutes to 9:00 p. m. she was walking on the sidewalk on South Greene Street in front of the defendant's parking lot. She saw an attendant on the platform therein. When she was beside defendant's advertising sign on the parking lot, she heard a loud noise, and the sign began falling. The sign fell upon her, knocking her to the sidewalk, and covering her and the sidewalk completely. While she was lying under the sign, three men came, lifted the sign off of her, and then picked her up. One of these men made the following statement to her, which upon defendant's objection was excluded: 'Lady, you know I am not responsible for this. The parking attendant just left my car in reverse. Lady, are you hurt? What is your Name? Where do you live? Now, you realize this is not my responsibility. I paid for my parking lot. ' Plaintiff assigns the exclusion of this statement as error. On cross-examination plaintiff said: 'The noise that I heard was not the breaking off of the post of the sign that embedded in the ground; it was the crash when the automobile hit the sign. * * * I said the next day I saw where the car had hit the four-by-four that was framing the sign, and I saw the split in the plywood sign itself, it was broken. The upright standard (four-by-four) which the car struck was the one toward the Meyer's building.'

About midnight plaintiff's husband, his father and a police officer went to the scene. This is the substance of her husband's testimony: He saw where the sign had been standing prior to its being hit by an automobile. He examined the sign for fresh marks. The left four-by-four running up the side, as one faced the sign, had been hit by a bumper toward the bottom. He found marks where it had been splintered. The sign was cracked in front 4 or 5 feet up. It had the appearance of being a fresh cut. The sign was framed by four-by-fours with plywood in the center. The sign was 8 1/2 or 9 feet long and 4 to 4 1/2 feet wide. The framing of the sign extended below the sign for about 2 feet, and there was another four-by-four running straight across the curb and a leg running down for 8 or 10 inches. The leg in front was anchored to a stob with a small piece of metal wrapped around the stob and attached to the leg. There was a stob on each front leg attached in this manner. There were four-by-fours directly back of the...