{
  "id": 8553161,
  "name": "DORIS PREVETTE v. WILKES GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Prevette v. Wilkes General Hospital, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1978-08-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7723SC499",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 425"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 514",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551816
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "214"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570251
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "602"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "36"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625839
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "261-62"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 754",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621703
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0754-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566260
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0728-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 456,
    "char_count": 7587,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.839,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2895799668416042e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6194480836527535
    },
    "sha256": "5e9d521db810d3d6b1cfc2e75e7726d43e332f6f48298213c5649de3c7617e4c",
    "simhash": "1:a00d7ce663093b4f",
    "word_count": 1333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DORIS PREVETTE v. WILKES GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe sole question presented by this appeal is whether the court erred in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. We find no error and accordingly affirm.\nIn determining the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the submission of an issue of contributory negligence to the jury, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant and disregard that which is favorable to the plaintiff. Boyd v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 728, 153 S.E. 2d 484 (1967); Wilson v. Camp, 249 N.C. 754, 107 S.E. 2d 743 (1959); 9 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d, Negligence \u00a7 34. \u201cIf different inferences may be drawn from the evidence on the issue of contributory negligence, some favorable to plaintiff and others to the defendant, it is a case for the jury to determine.\u201d Bell v. Maxwell, 246 N.C. 257, 261-62, 98 S.E. 2d 33, 36 (1957).\nThe evidence in the present case discloses that such defects as may have existed in the ramp were all of a nature which should have been readily apparent to anyone who looked to see what was there to be seen. The evidence also shows that plaintiff had used the ramp many times and had had the opportunity to be thoroughly familiar with it before her fall. \u201cSlight depressions, unevenness and irregularities in outdoor walkways, sidewalks and streets are so common that their presence is to be anticipated by prudent persons.\u201d Evans v. Batten, 262 N.C. 601, 602, 138 S.E. 2d 213, 214 (1964). Plaintiff, as an invitee, had the duty to see that which could be seen in the exercise of ordinary prudence, and to use reasonable care to protect herself. Brady v. Coach Co., 2 N.C. App. 174, 162 S.E. 2d 514 (1968). Plaintiff testified that she \u201cdid not pay any attention to the ramp that day.\u201d This evidence, if it did not compel, was clearly sufficient to support a jury finding that plaintiffs own negligence was a proximate cause of her injuries. Plaintiff may not justly complain that the jury was permitted to make that finding.\nNo error.\nJudges VAUGHN and WEBB concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Willardson by Larry S. Moore and John S. Willard-son for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Mitchell, Teele & Blackwell by H. Dockery Teele, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DORIS PREVETTE v. WILKES GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.\nNo. 7723SC499\n(Filed 1 August 1978)\nNegligence \u00a7 54\u2014 invitee at hospital \u2014 fall on ramp \u2014 contributory negligence\nIn an action to recover for injuries received when plaintiff slipped and fell on a concrete ramp leading from defendant hospital\u2019s emergency room, the trial court properly submitted an issue of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence to the jury where the evidence showed that such defects as may have existed in the ramp were all of a nature which should have been readily apparent to anyone who looked to see what was there to be seen; the evidence showed that plaintiff had used the ramp many times and had had the opportunity to be thoroughly familiar with it before her fall; and plaintiff testified that she \u201cdid not pay any attention to the ramp that day.\u201d\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 9 March 1977 in Superior Court, WILKES County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1978.\nPlaintiff instituted this civil action to recover damages for bodily injuries she received on 24 June 1975 when she slipped and fell on a concrete ramp leading from defendant\u2019s emergency room. She alleged that the fall was caused by negligence of the defendant in constructing the ramp with an excessive incline, in failing to provide handrails of the proper length, in failing to construct and maintain a nonslip surface (all in violation of the State Building Code), in negligently maintaining the ramp by allowing the antiskid strips on the ramp to wear through, in failing to fill in a hole near the bottom of the ramp, in failing to warn invitees of hidden dangers or unsafe conditions of which defendant had knowledge or by the exercise of due care should have had knowledge, and in failing to make reasonable inspections of the ramp to assure that it was in a reasonably safe condition.\nDefendant answered, denying negligence and pleading plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence in failing to pay proper attention to the manner in which she was walking, in using the exit ramp for the emergency room rather than the exit provided for the general public, and in using the ramp when she was familiar with its condition.\nAt trial before a jury, plaintiff presented evidence to show that on 24 June 1975 she went with her eight-year-old son to Wilkes General Hospital to visit her mother, who was a patient in the hospital. She entered the hospital by the emergency room entrance and left the hospital by the same route. A concrete ramp led down from the emergency room entrance to the asphalt paved parking lot. The top of this ramp was seventeen inches higher than the ground level at the lower end of the ramp, and the ramp was fourteen feet, six inches long. There were handrails on each side of the ramp, but these did not extend for the full length of the ramp, so that at its lower end the ramp extended approximately two and one-half feet beyond the handrails. There were nonskid, abrasive strips attached across the ramp, but these were worn smooth. As plaintiff walked down the ramp, her foot started sliding when she was about two-thirds of the way down. Her foot then hit into something at the end of the ramp, causing her to fall. She had been holding to the handrail, but the rail did not extend to the end of the ramp. When she fell, she did not know what she had hit at the bottom of the ramp. However, after falling she looked back and observed \u201ca little busted up place\u201d at the bottom of the ramp which was \u201cabout six or eight inches long,\u201d with gravel lying around in it. The hole was \u201cabout half an inch deep, it wasn\u2019t much.\u201d The black strips across the ramp were worn out about three-fourths of the way down, and when plaintiff reached the spot where the black strips were worn out, she started to slide. Plaintiff first testified that the accident occurred at approximately 3:00 p.m., but she later testified on cross-examination that \u201c[w]hen I fell it was in the evening and was dark but the emergency room area was lit.\u201d\nOn cross-examination plaintiff testified that from January to March 1975 \u201cshe was in and out of the hospital all of the time\u201d to see her father, who .died in April, and that after his death she visited her mother at the hospital; that \u201cthe only way [she] would go in was in the emergency room,\u201d although she \u201cused the main entrance of the hospital once in a long while\u201d; that she had been on this ramp \u201cabout a hundred times\u201d prior to her fall; and that on the day she fell she had used this ramp to enter the hospital to visit her mother. She also testified that she \u201cdid not pay any attention to the ramp that day,\u201d that she had \u201cnever paid much attention to the surface of the ramp,\u201d that \u201c[tjhere was really no reason for Pier] to pay any attention to it,\u201d and that \u201c[t]here was no reason [she] couldn\u2019t look down and see the ramp,\u201d \u201c[i]t is just that when you are walking, you can\u2019t always pay attention because you can\u2019t look down all the time.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s evidence showed that the ramp was seven feet, eight inches wide, and the hole at the bottom of the ramp was five to six inches long, two inches wide, and a quarter-inch deep.\nThe court submitted issues of negligence and contributory negligence, both of which were answered in the affirmative. From judgment on the verdict, plaintiff appeals, assigning as error the submission of the issue of contributory negligence.\nMoore & Willardson by Larry S. Moore and John S. Willard-son for plaintiff appellant.\nMitchell, Teele & Blackwell by H. Dockery Teele, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 456
}