Norris v. Belk's Dept. Store of Dunn, N. C., Inc., 528

• Citation: 130 S.E.2d 537,259 N.C. 350
• Decision Date: 01 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 528,528
• Parties: Susan Tart NORRIS v. BELK'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF DUNN, NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

Page 537

130 S.E.2d 537

259 N.C. 350

Susan Tart NORRIS v. BELK'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF DUNN, NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED.

No. 528

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 1, 1963

Bryan & Bryan and Wilson & Bain, Dunn, for plaintiff.

Maupin, Taylor & Ellis, Raleigh, and Robert B. Morgan, Lillington, for defendant.

MOORE, Justice.

Plaintiff appellant asserts that the 'sucker stick' covered by tissue paper constituted a hidden danger, this condition had existed in the aisle for thirty-five minutes at least, defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered and removed the hazard or warned plaintiff of its existence, and by failure to do so defendant is exposed to liability for damages.

It is axiomatic that storekeepers are not insurers of the safety of their customers while on store premises. Copeland v. Phthisic, 245 N.C. 580, 96 S.E.2d 697, 63 A.L.R.2d 587. Customers are invitees and the law imposes on storekeepers the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the aisles and passageways where customers are expected to go in a reasonably safe condition, so as not to unnecessarily expose them to danger, and to give warning of unsafe conditions of which the storekeeper knows or in the exercise of reasonable supervision and inspection should know. Lee v. Green & Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E. 2d 33.

Where an unsafe condition is created by third parties or an independent agency, plaintiff must show that it had existed for such a length of time that defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of its existence in time to have removed the danger or given proper warning of its presence. Case v. Cato's Inc., 252 N.C. 224, 113 S.E.2d 320; Powell v. Deifells, Inc., 251 N.C. 596, 112 S.E.2d 56. 'The length of time for which a dangerous condition in a store must exist to charge a storekeeper with knowledge of it depends on the nature of the business, the size of the store, the number of customers, the nature of the dangerous condition, and its location.' 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 51, pp. 547-548.

The instant case is factually unique in that the dangerous substance was a stick concealed by an innocuous piece of tissue paper. While there is no specific description of the stick in the record, it is assumed that it was cylindrical, wooden or plastic, three or four inches long, and had a diameter smaller than an ordinary pencil, and that it had been inserted in a piece of candy as a handle and was discarded after the candy was eaten. There is no showing that candy was sold in the infant's department or anywhere in the store. The dimensions of the tissue paper are not given, but inasmuch as it was of the type of paper used to wrap or separate infant's garments, the inference is that its size was relatively small. There is no evidence that either the stick or the paper was dropped or thrown on the floor by an employee of defendant.

Where a storekeeper or his employee has knowledge that a slippery, or otherwise inherently dangerous, substance is present in an aisle or passageway of the store and negligently permits it to remain there and fails to warn imperiled customers, or where such substance is and remains in the aisle or passageway for such period of time that the storekeeper or his employee in the exercise of...