Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 769
| Decision Date | 24 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 769,769 |
| Citation | 154 S.E.2d 483,270 N.C. 447 |
| Parties | Laura Mae Tapp WRENN v. HILLCREST CONVALESCENT HOME, INCORPORATED. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
E. C. Harris and C. Wallace Vickers, Durham, for plaintiff.
Brooks & Brooks, Durham, for defendant.
Conceding that plaintiff was an invitee on the property of defendant, the defendant was not an insurer of her safety. Its duty was to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises which plaintiff was to use in a reasonably safe condition, so as not to expose her unnecessarily to danger, and to give warning of hidden conditions and dangers of which it had knowledge, express or implied. Waters v. Harris, 250 N.C. 701, 110 S.E.2d 283. However, defendant was under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or of a condition of which the plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge. Harris v. Nachamson Department Stores Co., 247 N.C. 195, 100 S.E.2d 323.
There is plenary evidence that plaintiff had full knowledge of the freezing and icy condition of the area. The danger created by this condition was abvious, and plaintiff's evidence presents no facts from which it can be inferred that defendant had more knowledge than plaintiff of the alleged dangerous or unsafe condition. Thus, considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, which we must do on motion to nonsuit, Hudson v. Petroleum Transit Co., 250 N.C. 435, 108 S.E.2d 900, we hold that the evidence shows no actionable negligence on the part of defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
...("We have long held that a landowner has no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger."); Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 270 N.C. 447, 154 S.E.2d 483, 484 (1967) (per curiam) ("However, defendant was under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or of......
-
Txi Operations, L.P. v. Perry
...("We have long held that a landowner has no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger."); Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 270 N.C. 447, 154 S.E.2d 483, 484 (1967) (per curiam) ("However, defendant was under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or of......
-
Sexton v. US
...the invitee's use in a reasonably safe condition so as not to expose him unnecessarily to danger. Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 270 N.C. 447, 448, 154 S.E.2d 483, 484 (1967). If a peril is hidden or unsafe conditions exist, and the landowner has actual or constructive knowledg......
-
Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc., COA00-199.
...impose duty on landowner to protect from dangers known or which should be anticipated by invitee); Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc., 270 N.C. 447, 448, 154 S.E.2d 483, 484 (1967) (defendant landowner under "under no duty to warn plaintiff, as an invitee, of an obvious condition or......