Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.
Decision Date | 06 May 1959 |
Docket Number | SMITH-DOUGLAS,No. 522,522 |
Parties | J. M. SPELL v.CO., Inc. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Doffermyre, Stewart & Johnson, D. K. Stewart, Dunn, for plaintiff, appellant.
Taylor & Morgan, Lillington, Fletcher & Lake, I. Beverly Lake, Raleigh, for defendant, appellee.
Few, if any, questions of law are presented to this Court with more frequency than the sufficiency of evidence in a civil case to survive a motion for nonsuit. Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747, 107 S.E.2d 757; Hood v. Queen City Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E.2d 154; McFalls v. Smith, 249 N.C. 123, 105 S.E.2d 297; Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E.2d 451.
The evidence in this case establishes the fact that plaintiff was an invitee upon the premises under the control of the defendant. Ordinarily, a proprietor of a store or business establishment is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees. He owes them the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warning or notice of hidden perils or unsafe conditions insofar as they can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision. Hood v. Coach Co., supra; Thompson v. DeVonde, 235 N.C. 520, 70 S.E.2d 424; Coston v. Skyland Hotel, 231 N.C. 546, 57 S.E.2d 793; Ross v. Sterling Drug Store, 225 N.C. 226, 34 S.E.2d 64; Griggs v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 N.C. 166, 10 S.E.2d 623; Bohannon v. Leonard-Fitzpatrick-Mueller Stores Co., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Slaughter v. State Capital Life Ins. Co.
-
Whitaker v. Blackburn, 7910DC1099
...hidden perils or unsafe conditions insofar as they can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision. Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co., 250 N.C. 269, 108 S.E.2d 434 (1959). Applying these rulings to the facts of this case, we hold the summary judgment for defendants was properly granted......
-
Bowman v. Bowman, 8422SC608
...the defendants' motion for a directed verdict. Defendants urge this Court to affirm the trial court, citing Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co., Inc., 250 N.C. 269, 108 S.E.2d 434 (1959). In Spell, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case where the plaintiff's ......
-
Spell v. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 171
...if its agents knew, or in the exercise of reasonable supervision and inspection, should have discovered the peril. Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co., 250 N.C. 269, 108 S.E.2d 434. However, in this case there is no evidence to sustain plaintiff's contention that a reasonable inspection of the ditch......