Klassette v. Liggett Drug Co. Inc
Decision Date | 30 April 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 531.,531. |
Citation | 227 N.C. 353,42 S.E.2d 411 |
Parties | KLASSETTE. v. LIGGETT DRUG CO. Inc., et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Geo. B. Patton, Special Judge.
Action by Ella Klassette against Liggett Drug Company, Inc., and others to recover for injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on a sidewalk. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover damages for personal injury sustained in a fall on street sidewalk allegedly resulting from actionable negligence of defendants.
Plaintiff took voluntary nonsuit as to defendants Blythe & Isenhour.
These facts in respect to the subject of this action on the dates in question appeal to be uncontroverted:
The individual defendants owned the building at the northeast corner of the intersection of Tryon and Trade streets in the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. The owners had leased in writing the ground floor, a part of the basement, and certain space on the second floor of said building to defendants Liggett Drug Company, who then occupied same. On early morning of 17 November, 1943, there was an intense fire in that part of the building so occupied by defendant Drug Company. The fire department of the city of Charlotte extinguished the fire by pumping water on it from three pumps for more than an hour each. The next morning, 18 November, about eleven o'clock, plaintiff slipped and fell as she was walking from the intersection of said streets along East Trade Street, in front of the building, and suffered injury.
Plaintiff alleges in her complaint: that that part of the building covered by the lease to defendant Liggett Drug Company was at the time of her injury in the joint possession and control of the defendants owners and defendant lessee; that "as a result of said fire, and especially as a result of the substance and liquid running out of said building, the sidewalk on East Trade Street adjoining said building became and remained in an oily, greasy and slippery condition, " thereby becoming and remaining "in a dangerous and unsafe condition, " by reason of which she fell and was injured.
Plaintiff also alleges that the defendants owners and defendant lessee were guilty of negligence in that:
Plaintiff further alleges that "defendant city of Charlotte was guilty of negligence in that it allowed said sidewalk to become and remain in said slippery, unsafe and dangerous condition without taking any steps to remedy same, or to give notice of said condition to persons attempting to use said sidewalk."
Plaintiff further alleges that "as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendants hereinbefore alleged, the plaintiff received severe, painful and permanent injuries, etc."
Defendants owners, lessee and city, severally answering, deny in material aspect the foregoing allegations of the complaint, and severally plead the contributory negligence of plaintiff in bar of her recovery in this action.
Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show these facts pertaining to the scene of her fall and injury: The intersection of Tryon Street, which runs generally north and south, and Trade Str«et, which runs east and west, is known as the Square in the city of Charlotte. The Liggett Drug Company building. I was up town shopner of the Square, with frontage on both Tryon and Trade streets. The sidewalk on the north side of Trade Street where plaintiff fell "coming from the Square toward Belk's is slanting * * * down hill, " and is fairly wide.
Plaintiff, as witness for herself, testified in pertinent part:
Then on cross examination, plaintiff testified: To each of these questions, she answered, "Yes, sir."
Then, continuing, the plaintiff testified: The witness testified to the effect that the liquid coming out of the front door of Liggett's flowed down the sidewalk as far as the Duke Power Company office. Then she was asked these questions, to which she answered as shown: Then in describing her shoes she said "the bottom of the shoe is flat and the heel is above the sole, " and that she "walked through this water or liquid all the way from the corner down...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bynum v. Wilson Cnty.
...capacity, and cannot be held liable for negligence.Faw, 253 N.C. at 409–10, 117 S.E.2d at 17 (citing Klassette v. Drug Co., 227 N.C. 353, 360, 42 S.E.2d 411, 416 (1947); Woodie v. North Wilkesboro, 159 N.C. 353, 356, 74 S.E. 924, 925 (1912) (additional citation omitted)); see also, e.g., Ca......
-
McKinney v. City of High Point
...has been uniformly held that, except as to certain exempted services such as furnishing water to extinguish fires, Klassette v. Liggett Drug Co., 227 N.C. 353, 42 S.E.2d 411; Mabe v. City of Winston-Salem, 190 N.C. 486, 130 S.E. 169; Mack v. Charlotte City Water-Works, 181 N.C. 383, 107 S.E......
-
Glenn v. City of Raleigh
...in its governmental capacity insofar as its uses the water for extinguishing fires, washing streets and the like, Klassette v. Liggett Drug Co., 227 N.C. 353, 42 S.E.2d 411, but it operates such plant in its proprietary capacity when it sells water to its citizens. Even so, the expenditure ......
-
Candler v. City of Asheville
...Greenville, 159 N.C. 632, 75 S.E. 849; Howland v. City of Asheville, 174 N.C. 749, 94 S.E. 524, L.R.A.1918B, 728; Klassette v. Liggett Drug Co., 227 N.C. 353, 42 S.E.2d 411; and provide electric energy for lighting streets, Baker v. City of Lumberton, 239 N.C. 401, 79 S.E.2d 886; or for the......