Watkins v. Taylor Furnishing Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1944
• Docket Number: 452.
• Citation: 31 S.E.2d 917,224 N.C. 674
• Parties: WATKINS v. TAYLOR FURNISHING CO., Inc.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

31 S.E.2d 917

224 N.C. 674

WATKINS v. TAYLOR FURNISHING CO., Inc.

No. 452.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 22, 1944

Douglass & Douglass and E. D. Flowers, all of Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

T Lacy Williams, of Raleigh, for defendant-appellee.

SCHENCK Justice.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damage for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in the erection, operation and maintenance of 'magic eye' doors in the entrances to its store building on Fayetteville Street in the City of Raleigh. The negligence is alleged to have consisted of the defendants having installed and invited the public to use 'a new fangled electrically controlled door without any notice or warning of any kind or nature of its nature and the danger attendant upon using the door in the usual and ordinary way' and 'negligently and carelessly installed an electrically controlled door with powerful springs, equipment and appliances' that would catch the body of a person entering the store between the door and the framing thereof. It is further alleged, that the plaintiff entered the store of the defendant from Fayetteville Street through the door on the east side of said street, and the electrically operated door suddenly closed in upon her, thereby inflicting injuries upon her.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff tended to show the erection, operation and maintenance by the defendant of two pairs of 'magic eye' doors opening from the store of the defendant into Fayetteville Street, which were operated by means of electricity, compressed air and springs, and that as the plaintiff attempted to enter one of the openings on Fayetteville Street through the door on the left side of said opening, the left door, which was partially open, suddenly closed and thereby caught the plaintiff between said left door and the other door or door frame, inflicting injury upon her.

The evidence goes only so far as to show that the plaintiff entered through the left side of the double door opening where the door on the left side was partially open, and that the door on the left side suddenly closed and caught the plaintiff between said left door and the other door or door frame.

There is a total lack of evidence of negligence in the erection operation or maintenance of the 'magic eye' doors. There is no evidence that the doors involved in the occurrence under investigation ever suddenly closed before said occurrence, or ever before caught any one attempting to enter the store, notwithstanding the doors had been installed several months and thousands of customers had entered through the door openings. This want of...