Southerland v. Kapp, 8121SC1246
| Docket Nº | No. 8121SC1246 |
| Citation | 59 N.C.App. 94, 295 S.E.2d 602 |
| Case Date | October 05, 1982 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 602
v.
Artis K. KAPP and wife, Brenda Kapp, Individually and d/b/a
Ribbons and Curls Beauty Salon.
Wade H. Leonard, Jr., Mocksville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by Daniel W. Donahue and Keith A. Clinard, Winston-Salem, for defendants-appellees.
BECTON, Judge.
It is undisputed that the weather was inclement on the day of the mishap. Rain mixed with sleet and snow had been falling all during the morning prior to plaintiff's fall, continued to fall during her visit to the beauty shop, and was falling when she fell. The parties also agree that ice had accumulated at the entrance to the beauty shop; that ice was present on the steps and patio; and that plaintiff was aware of the ice when she arrived at defendants' beauty shop. The defendants argue that they are not liable for plaintiff's injury because she was aware of the dangerous conditions. For the reasons set forth below, we agree.
[59 N.C.App. 95] The purpose of the summary judgment rule is to provide an efficient method for determining whether a material issue of fact actually exists. Durham v. Vine, 40 N.C.App. 564, 253 S.E.2d 316 (1979). In order to prevail, a movant must establish the absence of any material issue of fact. One way he can meet this burden is by showing the non-existence of an essential element of the plaintiff's claim for relief. Id., at 566, 253 S.E.2d at 318.
A prima facie case of negligence liability is alleged when a plaintiff shows that: defendant owed him a duty of care; defendant's conduct breached that duty; the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and damages resulted from the injury. Coltraine v. Hospital, 35 N.C.App. 755, 757-58, 242 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1978). In the case sub judice, plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants breached any duty owed them, and that flaw subjects this case to disposition by summary judgment.
A landowner is not an insurer of his invitee's safety. Rather, the duty owed business invitees is described as the duty to warn of or make safe concealed, dangerous conditions, the presence of which the landowner has express or implied knowledge. Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 303 N.C. 462, 467, 279 S.E.2d 559, 562 (1981). A landowner is under no duty to warn invitees of obvious dangers of which they have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoy v. Colonial Baking Co., Inc., s. 07-CA-58766
...CAROLINA: Nicholson v. Hugh Chatham Memorial Hosp., Inc., 300 N.C. 295, 266 S.E.2d 818 (1980) (requiring joinder); Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94, 295 S.E.2d 602 (1982) ("Plaintiff['s] ... consortium action is derivative [and] ... '[a] claim for consortium is non-existent in the absenc......
-
Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 9021SC1119
...The condition being obvious, the invitee is charged with equal knowledge. Id. at 448, 154 S.E.2d at 484. Accord Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94, 295 S.E.2d 602 (1982). The proprietor, therefore, has no duty to warn of the presence of automotive oil and grease, and the failure to remove ......
-
Cantrell v. US, 86-854-CIV-5.
...law, a plaintiff must show an actionable duty, a breach of the duty, actual and proximate causation, and damages. Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94, 95, 295 S.E.2d 602 (1982). The key issue in this case is whether the defendant had a duty to honor Puckett's voluntary request for admission......
-
Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc., 887SC961
...duty; the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and damages resulted from the injury. Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94, 295 S.E.2d 602 The owner of a place of business which is open to public patronage is under a duty to keep the approaches and entrances to his......