York v. Murphy, 691
| Decision Date | 19 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 691,691 |
| Citation | 141 S.E.2d 867,264 N.C. 453 |
| Parties | Mary Sikes YORK v. Clarence E. MURPHY and Dorothy Rogers Murphy. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
James C. Bowman, Southport, for plaintiff appellee.
Hogue, Hill & Rowe, by C. D. Hogue, Jr., Ronald D. Rowe, Wilmington, for defendant appellants.
The plaintiff alleged her fall and the resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligent failure of the defendants to provide for the plaintiff, an invitee, a reasonably safe means by which to enter and leave their business office. Specifically she insists the five and one-half inch step in the concrete walk was insufficiently lighted on the occasion of her injury and hence was unsafe.
The evidence in the record is sufficient to warrant the finding the plaintiff, on the occasion of her injury, was an invitee. The defendants were under the duty, therefore, 'to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to 'give warning of hidden perils or unsafe conditions in so far as can be ascertained by reasonable inspection.'' Jones v. Pinehurst, 261 N.C. 575, 135 S.E.2d 580; Shaw v. J. F. Ward Co., 260 N.C. 574, 133 S.E.2d 217; Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461.
Each personal injury action must be decided on its own facts. Seldom do we find two cases factually alike. Nevertheless, court decisions serve to locate, with some degree of distinctness, the dividing line separating the cases in which the facts are sufficient, from those in which they are insufficient, to permit a finding of actionable negligence. This Court has held, 'The mere fact that the plaintiff fell and suffered injuries * * * when she stepped from the higher to the lower level * * * raises no inference of negligence against the defendant. * * * Generally, in the absence of some unusual condition, the employment of a step by on owner of a building because of a difference between levels in not a violation of any duty to invitees. * * * 'Different floor levels in public and private buildings, connected by steps, are so common that the possibility of their presence is anticipated by prudent persons. The construction is not negligent unless, by its character, location, or surrounding circumstances a reasonably prudent person would not be likely to expect or see it.'' Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., 240 N.C. 391, 82 S.E.2d 365.
The plaintiff entered the defendants' office from her automobile parked a few feet to the left of the door. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedrick v. Tigniere, 281
...are not readily apparent to such observation as may reasonably be expected of such an invitee to such an establishment. York v. Murphy, 264 N.C. 453, 141 S.E.2d 867; Jones v. Pinehurst, Inc., 261 N.C. 575, 135 S.E.2d 580; Berger v. Cornwell, 260 N.C. 198, 132 S.E.2d 317; Norris v. Belk's De......
-
Cone v. Watson
...location, or surrounding circumstances a reasonably prudent person would not be likely to expect or see it.York v. Murphy, 264 N.C. 453, 455, 141 S.E.2d 867, 868–69 (1965) (citation, ellipses, and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff argues that the lack of lighting would be one such surroun......
-
Strickland v. Dri-Spray Division Equipment Development, DRI-SPRAY
...Co., 253 N.C. 482, 491, 117 S.E.2d 496, 503 (1960). See Sellers v. Vereen, 267 N.C. 307, 148 S.E.2d 98 (1966); York v. Murphy, 264 N.C. 453, 141 S.E.2d 867 (1965); Spell v. Contractors, 261 N.C. 589, 135 S.E.2d 544 (1964); Flores v. Caldwell, 14 N.C.App. 144, 187 S.E.2d 377 We are of the op......
-
Rappaport v. Days Inn of America, Inc.
...a violation of any duty to invitees.' " Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., 240 N.C. 391, 395, 82 S.E.2d 365, 368 (1954); accord, York v. Murphy, 264 N.C. 453, 141 S.E.2d 867 (1965); Garner v. Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461 Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to pr......