Ramsey v. Nash Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 397. |
| Citation | 183 S.E. 536,209 N.C. 165 |
| Parties | RAMSEY v. NASH FURNITURE CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Clement, Judge.
Action by M. E. Ramsey against the Nash Furniture Company. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Plaintiff stated his cause of action as follows:
"2. That the defendant operates a general furniture business in the store building or buildings located at 125 West Broad Street in Statesville, Iredell County; that said building or buildings face at the rear thereof upon an alleyway which is generally used by the public both as pedestrians and in automobiles; and that there is a loading platform and entrance way into the store building or buildings fronting on said alleyway.
3. That for some years prior to the 6th day of September, 1934, there was situated immediately to the right and well inside of the rear entrance doors a shaft in which was located an elevator which the plaintiff is informed and believes was used to convey passengers as well as goods and merchandise to and from the various floors and departments of said store, which shaft was protected by a sliding door or gate; that at sometime prior to the 6th day of September, 1934, the rear of said building or buildings was altered so that the rear entrance doors were moved eastward a distance of approximately ten feet, thereby placing them directly in front of the said elevator shaft; that the entrance to said elevator shaft was changed so that it opened directly into and in front of said rear entrance doors, whereas formerly said entrance had been on the left or westward side of said shaft; that said sliding gate or door protecting the entrance to said shaft was removed and replaced by two lattice doors which opened outward from said shaft and towards the rear entrance doors and were secured or fastened to said shaft in the center of the entrance by means of two latches to which were fastened chains which hung down on the outside directly in front of the rear entrance doors of said building or buildings; that on the opposite side of said shaft there were other lattice doors opening into the interior of said building or buildings from the shaft so that there was a clear view afforded from the rear entrance doors through said shaft into the interior of said building or buildings; that when said rear entrance doors were opened they barely cleared the shaft and thereby obscured and obstructed any entrance way into the interior of said building or buildings other than through the said shaft.
4. That on the 6th day of September, 1934, the plaintiff did not know or have cause to know of the said alterations and changes in said building or buildings as set forth in the next preceding paragraph.
5. That for a number of years prior to the 6th day of September 1934, it was, and at the date of filing of this complaint still is, the custom and usage of customers and other persons having business with the defendant, its officers and employees to approach said building or buildings from the rear by said alleyway and to use the rear entrance doors in entering said building or buildings and to use the same means in departing therefrom, which custom and usage was and is well known to the defendant.
6. That on or about the 6th day of September, 1934, at about the hour of 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the plaintiff, having business in the store of the defendant, approached the rear of said building or buildings by said alleyway, stepped upon the loading platform and approached the rear entrance doors which at that time were open, and as hereinbefore alleged obstructed and obscured the way of entrance into the interior of said building or buildings other than through said shaft.
7. That at the time the plaintiff reached the lattice doors at the entrance of the shaft the elevator had been raised to the second floor thereby causing said shaft to be dark; that the plaintiff saw no way to enter the interior of said building or buildings except through and by means of said lattice doors; that he saw the chains hanging from the latches on said doors, pulled the one on the right hand door and opened said door; that he took one step forward and fell a distance of 6 to 6 1/2 feet into said shaft, landing on the concrete floor at the bottom thereof.
8. That the defendant knew, or by the exercise of due care should have known, that said rear entrance doors were commonly used by the public in entering its place of business and that the conditions and circumstances surrounding said shaft and its location constituted a dangerous place and a hazard to persons entering its place of business by said rear entrance doors, but in spite of such knowledge carelessly and negligently omitted and failed to provide adequate safeguards and means of warning and protection from such danger and hazard to persons who thus entered said place of business, but in fact invited such persons to seek to enter the interior thereof through said lattice doors at said entrance by reason of the view of the interior thereof through said doors and the said chains hanging on the outside of said doors of the shaft.
9. That the negligence of the defendant, as set forth in the next preceding paragraph, was the sole, direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial