Little v. Wilson Oil Corp.
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 729,249 N.C. 773 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 251,251 |
| Parties | J. D. LITTLE v. WILSON OIL CORPORATION and S. W. Worthington, Jr. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Robert A. Farris and Lamb, Lamb & Daughtridge, Wilson, for plaintiff, appellant.
Gardner, Connor & Lee, Wilson, for defendants, appellees.
A demurrer was sustained to the original complaint. Whereupon, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants again demurred upon the ground that the amended complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that it showed upon its face that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Judge Morris sustained the demurrer to the amended complaint, but his order does not state the ground upon which he based his decision.
This is a summary of the material allegations of the amended complaint: The defendant Worthington owns a service station in the City of Wilson, which he leased to defendant Wilson Oil Corporation. Both defendants were in charge of the service station, and had supervision and control of it.
At 9:30 a. m. on 6 December 1956 plaintiff as an invitee drove his automobile on the premises of the service station to purchase gasoline and other items sold there. There was situated upon the premises in the space between the gasoline pumps and the service station building a concrete slab extending from the gasoline pumps to within a distance of about six feet from the front door of the building. From this point the area was paved with asphalt to the service station building's entrance.
While an attendant was putting gasoline into plaintiff's automobile, plaintiff entered the service station to buy a coca-cola and a package of crackers. When plaintiff was in the service station, the attendant urgently called him to assist in the servicing of his automobile. In response to the call plaintiff started walking to his automobile. To reach it he was compelled to walk around another automobile parked near the entrance of the service station, which blocked his view of the concrete slab. Immediately after walking around this other parked automobile plaintiff was tripped up by the edge of the concrete slab, which unknown to him, protruded about one and three quarters inches above the asphalt at that point, and fell sustaining injuries.
The defendants were negligent in not providing a safe means of entering and leaving the premises; in allowing a dangerous situation to exist in that the concrete slab was surrounded by asphalt, which at certain points had sunk or deteriorated, leaving a sharp edge of the concrete slab above the asphalt, and this condition was known to the defendants, or should have been known to them by the exercise of due care; in giving no warning of such dangerous condition; and that this dangerous condition had existed for a long time in spite of injuries suffered by other people on the premises.
Plaintiff was on the premises of the service station as a customer. This made him an invitee. Standard Oil Co. v. Gentry, 241 Ala. 62, 1 So.2d 29; Standard Oil Co. v. Burleson, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 412; Vanderdoes v. Rumore, La.App., 2 So.2d 284. See Sledge v. Wagoner, 248 N.C. 631, 104 S.E.2d 195; Lee v. H. L. Green & Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E.2d 33.
Therefore, the defendants who were in charge of the service station and had supervision and control over it, while not insurers of his safety when using the premises, owed him the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care for his safety, and to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use by him according to the invitation, and to give warning of hidden dangers or unsafe conditions attendant on his use, known to them, or which by reasonable inspection and supervision might have been known by them. Standard Oil Co. v. Gentry, supra; Standard Oil Co. v. Burleson, supra; Flynn v. Cities Service Refining Co., 306 Mass. 302, 28 N.E.2d 453; Reynolds v. Skelly Oil Co., 227 Iowa 163, 287 N.W. 823; Champlin Refining Co. v. Walker, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 844; 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 777, p. 940; 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 45, pp. 526-532; 24 Am.Jur., Gasoline Stations, Section 20; Annotation 116 A.L.R. pp. 1205-1206.
This Court in many cases involving other buildings than service stations has stated in language substantially similar to the above the duty owed by owners, occupants or persons in charge of premises to invitees thereon. Sledge v. Wagoner, supra; Lee v. H. L. Green & Co., supra; Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, Inc., 230 N.C. 694, 55 S.E.2d 493; Ross v. Sterling Drug Store, 225 N.C. 226, 34 S.E.2d 64; Watkins v. Taylor Furnishing Co., 224 N.C. 674, 31 S.E.2d 917; Bohannon v. Leonard-Fitzpatrick-Mueller Stores Company, Inc., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356.
The allegations in the amended complaint that the defendants were negligent in not providing a safe means of entering and leaving the premises, and that this dangerous situation had existed for a long time are merely legal inferences or conclusions of law asserted by the plaintiff, and are not admitted as true by the demurrer. Hedrick v. Graham, 245 N.C. 249, 96 S.E.2d 129; McKinney v. City of High Point, 237 N.C. 66, 74 S.E.2d 440.
On the demurrer we take the case as alleged by the amended complaint. The demurrer admits the truth of factual averments well stated, and such relevant inferences as may be legitimately deduced therefrom. And in passing on the demurrer we are required to construe the amended complaint liberally with a view to substantial justice between the parties and to make every reasonable intendment in favor of the pleader. G.S. § 1-151; Hedrick v. Graham, supra. The ultimate facts asserted by the pleader as to the alleged negligence are these: There was situated upon the premises in the space between the gasoline pumps and the service station building a concrete slab extending from the gasoline pumps to within a distance of about six feet from the front door of the building. The area from the concrete slab to the service station building was paved with asphalt. The edge of this concrete slab unknown to plaintiff protruded about one and three quarters inches above the asphalt at the point where he tripped over it, and fell. The concrete slab was surrounded by asphalt, which had sunk or deteriorated, leaving a sharp edge of the concrete slab above the asphalt, and this was known by the defendants, or should have been known to them by the exercise of due care. The defendants gave him no warning of such condition. A parked automobile near the entrance of the filling station blocked his view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 380
...Tea Co., 218 N.C. 732, 12 S.E.2d 242; Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co., [198 N.C. 559, 152 S.E. 625].' See also Little v. Wilson Oil Corp., 249 N.C. 773, 776, 107 S.E.2d 729, and Sledge v. Wagoner, 248 N.C. 631, 635, 104 S.E.2d 'The proprietor of a place of business which is kept open to public ......
-
Horton v. Redevelopment Commission of High Point, 599
...fact reasonably deducible therefrom. But it does not admit inferences or conclusions of law asserted by the pleader. Little v. Wilson Oil Corp., 249 N.C. 773, 107 S.E.2d 729; Hedrick v. Graham, 245 N.C. 249, 96 S.E.2d 129; Strong's N. C. Index, Vol. 3, Pleadings, pp. The demurrer admits, fo......
-
Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 26
...the stream. On the other hand, in a jurisdiction requiring liberal construction of pleadings, as ours does (Little v. Wilson Oil Corp., 249 N.C. 773, 776, 107 S.E.2d 729), it might be maintained that the reasonable intendment of the pleadings as cast is that the waters flowed as a stream in......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. ADM Mill. Co.
...cited by plaintiff, Long v. Methodist Home, 281 N.C. 137, 187 S.E.2d 718 (1972); Wrenn v. Convalescent Home, supra; Little v. Oil Corp., 249 N.C. 773, 107 S.E.2d 729 (1959); Phillips v. Industries, Inc., 44 N.C.App. 66, 259 S.E.2d 769 (1979); and Brady v. Coach Co., 2 N.C.App. 174, 162 S.E.......