Sams v. Hotel Raleigh Inc
Decision Date | 24 January 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 377.,377. |
Citation | 172 S.E. 371,205 N. C. 758 |
Parties | SAMS. v. HOTEL RALEIGH, Inc. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Cranmer, Judge.
Action by Maud Sams against the Hotel Raleigh, Inc. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The plaintiff had a room in the defendant hotel and alleged that on January 30, 1933, at about the hour of 9:30 p. m. she came out of her room on the third floor of said hotel with the intention of descending the stairs between the third and second floors for the purpose of going to the room of the assistant manager of said hotel, who was ill, to inquire as to his condition and to secure the teaspoons from his tray which would be needed for his early breakfast; said meal to be furnished from the coffee shop operated by this plaintiff; that plaintiff had descended within about seven steps of the second floor when the heel of her left shoe becamecaught and hung in the edge of a metal strip which the defendant had tacked on the outer edge of one of the steps of said stairs for the purpose of holding the carpet firmly on said stairs; that the defendant had carelessly, recklessly, and negligently allowed the said metal strip to protrude upward on the step to such an extent that a person's shoe might be caught in the knifelike edge thereof; that the heel of plaintiff's left shoe caught in the edge of said metal strip so firmly that the shoe was forced off plaintiff's foot and the heel off the shoe; that the tripping over the protruding edge of said metal strip caused her to lose her balance and to fall down the remaining six steps on the way to the second floor.
Plaintiff testified:
There was evidence that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...Ward & Co., 217 N.C. 368, 8 S.E.2d 199, 201; Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662; Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, 205 N.C. 758, 172 S.E. 371; Cooke v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 204 N.C. 495, 168 S.E. 679; Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra; Bohannan ......
-
Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp.
... ... guests or invitees warning of any hidden peril. Schwingle ... v. Kellenberger, 217 N.C. 577, 8 S.E.2d 918; Sams v ... Hotel Raleigh, 205 N.C. 758, 172 S.E. 371; Jones v ... Bland, 182 N.C. 70, 108 S.E. 334, 16 A.L.R. 1383; ... Patrick v. Springs, 154 N.C ... ...
-
Emerson v. Great Atlantic and Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
...to show (a) defective or negligent construction or maintenance; (b) express or implied notice of such defects. Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, Inc., 205 N.C. 758, 172 S.E. 371 (1934). Plaintiff contends that the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing establish a triable iss......
-
Schwingle v. Kellenberger
...sustained. In this we can see no error. Speaking to the subject of the duty imposed upon owners to invitees, in Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, 205 N.C. 758, 760, 172 S.E. 371, 372, it is written: "In order to establish a breach of duty so imposed, the injured party must offer evidence tending to sh......