Madden v. Carolina Door Controls, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 9328SC1302,9328SC1302
• Citation: 449 S.E.2d 769,117 N.C.App. 56
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Juanita MADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROLINA DOOR CONTROLS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Page 769

449 S.E.2d 769

117 N.C.App. 56

Juanita MADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROLINA DOOR CONTROLS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9328SC1302.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 15, 1994.

Lindsay and True by Ronald C. True, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Tate, Young, Morphis, Bach & Farthing, L.L.P. by Edwin G. Farthing and Paul E. Culpepper, Hickory, for defendant-appellant.

ORR, Judge.

I.

The first issue presented is whether the trial court erred by denying defendant Carolina Door Control, Inc.'s motion for directed verdict and post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial, on the grounds that there was no evidence presented to establish negligence on the part of Defendant Carolina and that the charge on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improper under the facts presented.

"Defendant's motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict present the same question for review, namely, whether the evidence taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have a jury pass on it." City of Charlotte v. Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, et. al., 103 N.C.App. 667, 677, 407 S.E.2d 571, 578 (1991). "All the evidence which supports the claim of the party opposing the motion must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to him, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, and with contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies being resolved in his favor." Id. "If there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the nonmovant's case, the motion for directed verdict should be denied." Snead v. Holloman, 101 N.C.App. 462, 463, 400 S.E.2d 91, 92 (1991). A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a motion that judgment be entered in accordance with the movant's earlier motion for a directed verdict, notwithstanding the contrary verdict actually returned by the jury, Summey v. Cauthen, 283 N.C. 640, 648, 197 S.E.2d 549, 554 (1973), and is technically a renewal of the motion for directed verdict. Harvey v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Inc., 60 N.C.App. 554, 555, 299 S.E.2d 664, 665 (1983).

"The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is merely a mode of proof and when applicable it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of negligence. However, the burden of proof on such issue remains upon the plaintiff." Sharp v. Wyse, 317 N.C. 694, 697, 346 S.E.2d 485, 487 (1986) (quoting Lea v. Carolina Power and Light Co., 246 N.C. 287, 290, 98 S.E.2d 9, 11 (1957)) (citations omitted). "Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) simply means that the facts of the occurrence itself warrant an inference of defendant's negligence, i.e., that they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence where direct evidence of it may be lacking." Sharp, 317 N.C. at 697, 346 S.E.2d at 487 (quoting Kekelis v. Whitin Machine Works, 273 N.C. 439, 443, 160 S.E.2d 320, 323 (1968)) (citations omitted).

Res ipsa loquitur, in its distinctive sense, permits negligence to be inferred from the physical cause of an accident, without the aid of circumstances pointing to the responsible human cause. Where this rule applies, evidence of the physical cause or causes of the accident is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the bare question of negligence. But where the rule does not apply, the plaintiff must prove circumstances tending to show some fault or omission or commission on the part of the defendant in addition to those which indicate the physical cause of the accident. (Emphasis added.)

Id.

Defendant Carolina argues that plaintiff presented no evidence of negligence on the part of Defendant Carolina. On the contrary, the record and trial transcript show that there was ample evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant was negligent. Plaintiff's evidence tends to show the following: There are two mats used in the automatic operation of the door at the Ingles market where Mrs. Madden was injured. The outer mat is the approach mat and when stepped on with twenty-five foot pounds of weight, metal contacts within the mat are engaged sending an electrical signal to a motor which causes the door to open. The inner mat is the safety mat and when stepped on with twenty-five foot pounds of weight, an electrical signal is transmitted to the motor by the contacts in that mat. The door is then held open until the person passing through the portal has safely cleared the area. After the area is cleared, the door closes at a controlled rate of speed. The force of the closing spring is regulated through the motor by a control. There is a mechanism built into the control so that the motor acts as a brake and the closing speed is regulated at a smooth, steady rate. In the event the contacts in the safety mat are worn or do not properly engage, the door will close prematurely; however, forty pounds of pressure, such as provided by an hand, arm or elbow, will stop it if the closing regulator is correctly set to industry standards.

Ingles has a contract with defendant to service its automatic doors at various stores in Buncombe County. All service is done on a "per call" basis, and Defendant Carolina warrants to the general public that its servicing is done in a "safe and workmanlike manner".

On 26 January, 1990, defendant's service technician was called to service the "IN" door on the Haywood Road side of Ingles # 5 because, as noted on the service report, "the door would not open all the way". At that time, a complete safety check was performed on both the "IN" and "OUT" doors. On 1 February 1990, the same technician returned to repair loose glass in the "OUT" door on the Haywood Road side of the store. Preventive maintenance was again performed on both doors. On 2 February 1990, plaintiff attempted to enter Ingles # 5 through the Haywood Road door, when the automatic door prematurely closed, knocking Mrs. Madden down and seriously injuring her.

On 12 February 1990, Mr. Douglas Alderman, a service technician for Defendant Carolina, was called to Ingles to service the "IN" door that knocked Mrs. Madden down located on the Haywood Road side because the door would not hold open. When Mr. Alderman performed a pressure test on the safety mat, he found a less-sensitive spot which caused the door to close. He installed a new mat and threw away the defective one.

That plaintiff's injuries were caused by the automatic "IN" door when it prematurely closed is undisputed. On cross-examination of its own employee, Defendant Carolina's witness testified that if the door is in the process of closing, it can be stopped with a hand, arm or elbow. Thus, if the safety mat fails, the door is apparently still safe because the speed at which the door closes is regulated, and if properly set, the door will stop upon meeting minimal resistance. In the instant case, the door did not stop and Mrs. Madden was seriously injured. Whether it was the defective mat or an improperly set door regulator, or both, that caused the door to prematurely close at such a rate as to knock plaintiff down, the operation and maintenance of the door were in the superior knowledge and management of Defendant Carolina. The mechanism controlling the automatic door is encased in an inaccessible housing above the door, and all of the evidence tends to show that only defendant Carolina was authorized and did in fact service this device.

Thus, all the evidence, viewed most favorably for the plaintiff, permitted the jury to infer negligence on the part of defendant Carolina. The automatic door caused plaintiff's injuries; the automatic doors do not ordinarily close and knock people down after they have been checked and serviced without some negligent action or omission; De...