Spivey v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 195
| Decision Date | 05 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 195,195 |
| Citation | 141 S.E.2d 808,264 N.C. 387 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lonnie R. SPIVEY v. The BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY. |
Aaron Goldberg, Wilmington, for plaintiff, appellant.
Marshall & Williams, Wilmington, for defendant, appellee.
Plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor who had undertaken to install plumbing fixtures on defendant's premises, was an invitee of defendant. Pafford v. J. A. Jones Construction Co., 217 N.C. 730, 9 S.E.2d 408; 2 Harper & James, Torts § 27.12 at p. 1481 (1956 Ed.) Defendant's duty to plaintiff, therefore, was one of due care under all the circumstances. The general rule is stated in Deaton v. Board of Trustees of Elon College, 226 N.C. 433, 438, 38 S.E.2d 561, 565:
'The owner is not responsible to an independent contractor for injuries from defects or dangers of which the contractor knew or should have known, 'but if the defect or danger is hidden and known to the owner, and neither known to the contractor, nor such as he ought to know, it is the duty of the owner to warn the contractor, and if he does not do this, he is liable for resultant injury.''
Accord, Williams v. McSwain, 248 N.C. 13, 102 S.E.2d 464; Lee v. H. L. Green & Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E.2d 33; Revis v. Orr, 234 N.C. 158, 66 S.E.2d 652, 28 A.L.R.2d 609.
A manhole, 8 feet deep, in an area covered with broken concrete and other debris is, without any doubt, a latent danger. Taking plaintiff's evidence as true, and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in passing upon a judgment of nonsuit, Pridgen v. Uzzell, 254 N.C. 292, 118 S.E.2d 755, two question arise: (1) Is the evidence sufficient to establish that defendant failed to provide devices adequate to give warning of the hole to a reasonably prudent workman? (2) If it is, does it establish plaintiff's contributory negligence so clearly that no other conclusion can be reasonably drawn from it? Peeden v. Tait, 254 N.C. 489, 119 S.E.2d 450.
The covering which defendant had provided for the manhole was made with 'inch boards' nailed to 2X4's. Between each of these slats was a space an inch and a half wide. This is not the type of cover one would ordinarily expect to find over an 8-foot manhole. Furthermore, it is a fair inference that dust from the broken concrete has sifted through the slats onto the cardboard cover over the hole sufficient to camouflage it and defeat the purpose of the wooden covering. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the defendant had taken reasonably adequate precautions to warn the workmen who, it knew, would be on the floor and who might fall into the hole unless they knew of its presence. Hence, an issue of defendant's actionable negligence arises for the determination of the jury unless plaintiff has proved himself out of court on the issue of contributory negligence.
In its First Further Answer and Defense defendant alleges that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in that (1) before going upon the premises upon which he was to work, plaintiff failed to examine the blue-print which he had in his possession and which disclosed the presence of the manhole, and (2) 'he removed a plywood covering and frame which had been placed over the hole and stepped on the cardboard without undertaking to discover what was thereunder or for what purpose it was there.'
Plaintiff argues that the slatted covering, at most only 4 inches high, appeared to him to be just another 'piece of stuff,' i.e., debris, covering the area; that the dusty cardboard did not stand out sufficiently on the rubble-covered floor to attract his attention; that the cardboard itself both constituted and concealed a trap rather than warned of one; and that, as a result, it fell into the hole with him. He further contends that the primary purpose of the blueprint was to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hite v. Maritime Overseas Corporation
...848, 303 N.Y.S.2d 695, 250 N.E.2d 735 (N.Y.1969); Brooks v. United States, 194 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1952); Spivey v. Babcock & Wilcox & Co., 264 N.C. 387, 141 S.E.2d 808 (1965); Wriglesworth v. Doyle, 244 Or. 468, 417 P.2d 999 (1966); Dutton v. Donald M. Drake Co., 237 Or. 419, 391 P.2d 761 (......
-
Kaminsky v. Sebile
...that evidence of a collateral benefit is improper when the plaintiff will not receive a double recovery. See Spivey v. Wilcox Co., 264 N.C. 387, 390, 141 S.E.2d 808, 811-12 (1965). Because Medicaid provides for a right of subrogation in the state to recover sums paid to plaintiffs, we find ......
-
Sexton v. US
...contractor and his employees who go upon the premises of the owner, at the owner's request, are invitees. Spivey v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 264 N.C. 387, 388, 141 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1965). The owner therefore owes a duty of due care under all the circumstances to the contractor and the contract......
-
Hairston v. Harward
...marks omitted) ). Like "a reference to the presence or absence of liability coverage for defendant," Spivey v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. , 264 N.C. 387, 390, 141 S.E.2d 808, 811 (1965) (superseded by statute , N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2(e) (1991), as stated in Frugard v. Pritchard , 338 N.C. 508, 511, 4......