{
  "id": 8548335,
  "name": "ELLA J. HEDGEPETH v. ROSE'S STORES, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hedgepeth v. Rose's Stores, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1979-02-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 786SC305",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 11"
    }
  ],
  "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": "108 S.E. 2d 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621033
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167826
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 537",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567280
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 A. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 Pa. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1072861
      ],
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/274/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.E. 2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 Mass. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        938313
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/332/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 A.L.R. 2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "474"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 A. 2d 115",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 Pa. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1223602
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/364/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 A. 2d 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Pa. Super. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        757209
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa-super/197/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.E. 2d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 Mass. 861",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        317472,
        317523
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/360/0861-01",
        "/mass/360/0861-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 S.E. 2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548565
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 804",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565265
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621033
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0151-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 614,
    "char_count": 12351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.844,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.343491648654732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48099078363255926
    },
    "sha256": "4f3a6b2d92cbcd060c51d85b5ddfb56ac4a5a27ab9aa0034ec25f0540417123a",
    "simhash": "1:12e0f8bcc79e9648",
    "word_count": 2130
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:01:10.825727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge VAUGHN concurs.",
      "Judge CLARK dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELLA J. HEDGEPETH v. ROSE\u2019S STORES, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe sole question presented by this appeal is whether plaintiff\u2019s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to her, was sufficient to support a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant which proximately caused plaintiff\u2019s injuries. We agree with the trial court that it was not.\nNumerous cases have noted the general rule that the owner or proprietor of a business, though not an insurer of the safety of his customers, does owe a duty to keep in a reasonably safe condition those portions of the premises which he may expect customers to use during regular business hours and to give warning of hidden perils or unsafe conditions insofar as they are known or can be ascertained by reasonable inspection. E.g., Wegner v. Delly-Land Delicatessen, Inc., 270 N.C. 62, 153 S.E. 2d 804 (1967); Stafford v. Food World, Inc., 31 N.C. App. 213, 228 S.E. 2d 756 (1976).\nPlaintiff contends that her evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant failed to keep the stairway in a reasonably safe condition. Plaintiff first argues that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered the condition of the \u201cworn\u201d metal strip on the stairway. Plaintiff next argues that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep the stairway clear and unobstructed by placing potted plants on the steps, thereby preventing persons from using the handrail. Plaintiff theorizes that had she \u201cbeen able to use the handrail to complete her descent to the basement level of the store, she could have prevented herself from falling on the step.\u201d\nThe only evidence introduced by the plaintiff as to the condition of the step on which she fell was that it was \u201cworn\u201d and that it was \u201cvery slick.\u201d Plaintiff, however, does not know on which step she fell, or even which foot slipped and caused her to fall. There is no evidence in this record that the condition of the step upon which plaintiff slipped was any different from that of the entire flight of steps. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence tending to show that the steps had a metal strip on them, and that the metal strip was \u201cworn\u201d and that the steps were \u201cvery slick\u201d apparently refers to all the steps. This is not sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the steps had become so worn that their use would be hazardous to the store\u2019s patrons. The unsupported allegations by the plaintiff that the set of steps on which she fell were \u201cworn\u201d or \u201cslick\u201d, without evidence of the particular defective condition that caused the fall, is insufficient to overcome a motion for a directed verdict. See Davis v. Albert Steiger, Inc., 360 Mass. 861, 277 N.E. 2d 312 (1971); Radies v. Reading Liederkranz German Singing and Sport Society, 197 Pa. Super. 509, 178 A. 2d 789 (1962); Novek v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 364 Pa. 349, 72 A. 2d 115 (1950); Annot., 64 A.L.R. 2d 471, 474 (1959).\nIn Di Noto v. Gilchrist Co., 332 Mass. 391, 125 N.E. 2d 239 (1955), there was evidence that the step on which plaintiff had slipped was constructed containing a large percentage of abrasive non-slip material but that the edge of the step had become worn down at least one inch. The court held that this evidence of the specific defect was sufficient to take the case to the jury. The court noted, however, that \u201cdescription of the step as wet or slippery and nothing more would not be sufficient to show that it was not reasonably safe for the use of defendant\u2019s customers.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in Chapman v. Clothier, 274 Pa. 394, 118 A. 356 (1922), the court held that the mere fact that marble steps had become worn and smooth was not sufficient to show negligence on the part of the proprietor.\nIn North Carolina, it has been held that the mere fact that a floor has been waxed and is slippery, does not make the owner liable for the fall of a patron on a slick spot on the floor, absent a showing of how the spot had been created or how long it had been there. Hinson v. Cato\u2019s, Inc., 271 N.C. 738, 157 S.E. 2d 537 (1967). See also Barnes v. Hotel OHenry Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E. 2d 180 (1949).\nWe think that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of showing that the cause of her fall was due to the negligently maintained condition of the stairway. Plaintiffs evidence in this regard consists only of conclusory allegations, which are not sufficient to meet the burden imposed on her.\nWe next consider plaintiff\u2019s argument that the store owner\u2019s actions in permitting plants to be placed on the steps which blocked access to the handrail, either alone, or in combination with the allegedly \u201cslick\u201d condition of the metal strips on the steps, was sufficient evidence of negligence allowing her case to go to the jury.\nInitially, we note that the route which plaintiff chose in descending the stairs was not the only means available to her. She could have used the set of steps to the left of the landing where access to the handrail was not blocked. Secondly, we note that a storeowner is not generally required to provide handrails on stairways, absent some building code, safety ordinance, or other special circumstances causing steps to be dangerous without one. Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E. 2d 461 (1959); 62 Am. Jur. 2d, Premises Liability \u00a7 229 (1972). Finally, plaintiff\u2019s contention that, had the handrail not been blocked, she could have averted her fall, is purely conjectural and impossible of proof. Plaintiff has the burden to show the cause of her fall. The evidence introduced by plaintiff leaves the cause of her fall a matter of conjecture. \u201cThere is no presumption or inference of negligence from the mere fact that an invitee fell to his injury while on the premises, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to a fall or injury of a patron or invitee on the premises, but the plaintiff has the burden of showing negligence and proximate cause.\u201d 9 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index, Negligence \u00a7 53.4, at 482-83 (3d Ed. 1977). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden.\nThis judgment directing a verdict for defendant is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudge VAUGHN concurs.\nJudge CLARK dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge CLARK\ndissenting.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show, first, that the metal strip on the front edge of each step was worn and slick, and, second, pots of flowers were placed on each step beside the handrail which made it difficult, if not impossible, to use the handrail in descending the stairway. These conditions were known, or reasonably should have been known, to the defendant. Plaintiff slipped on a step, tried but was unable to grasp the handrail for support, and fell. In my opinion there was sufficient evidence of negligence and proximate cause to overcome the motion for directed verdict.\nThe majority cites Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E. 2d 461 (1959), in support of the proposition that a storeowner is not generally required to provide handrails on stairways. We note this case involved not a stairway but a 6-inch perpendicular stepdown to the sidewalk at the front of the store. Clearly, Garner is distinguishable. And we find that the other cases relied on by the majority are factually distinguishable.\nI vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge CLARK"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Josey & McCoy, by H. P. McCoy, Jr., and C. Kitchin Josey for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by William M. Trott, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELLA J. HEDGEPETH v. ROSE\u2019S STORES, INC.\nNo. 786SC305\n(Filed 20 February 1979)\nNegligence \u00a7 57.4\u2014 fall on stairway in store \u2014 worn metal strips on stairs \u2014 hand rails blocked by plants \u2014 failure to show cause of fall\nIn an action to recover for injuries suffered by plaintiff when she slipped and fell while descending a stairway leading from a landing to the basement of defendant\u2019s store, plaintiff\u2019s evidence that each of the steps had a metal strip on it which was worn and slick was insufficient to overcome a motion for directed verdict where there was no evidence of the particular defective condition that caused her fall. Furthermore, evidence that potted plants placed on the right side of the steps next to the handrail blocked plaintiff\u2019s access to the handrail was insufficient evidence of negligence, when considered alone or in conjunction with the allegedly slick condition of the metal strips on the steps, to allow plaintiffs case to go to the jury since (1) another set of steps on the other side of the landing where the handrail was not blocked was available to plaintiff, (2) a store owner is not generally required to provide handrails on stairways absent some building code, safety ordinance or other special circumstances causing steps to be dangerous without one, and (3) plaintiff\u2019s contention that she could have averted her fall had the handrail not been blocked was purely conjectural.\nJudge Clark dissenting.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Graham, Judge. Judgment entered 29 May 1977 in Superior Court, HALIFAX County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 16 January 1979.\nThis is a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from defendant\u2019s negligence. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that on 1 November 1975, she, accompanied by her sister, was shopping in the defendant\u2019s store in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina and that she was proceeding down some stairs to the toy department when she slipped and fell. In describing her fall, plaintiff alleged:\n6. ... As she proceeded down the last several steps, the defendant had placed a number of large potted plants adjacent to the handrail preventing the plaintiff from grasping the handrail on the last several steps. That as the plaintiff attempted to move down the last several steps, her heel skidded on the slick metal tread of the steps and she was unable to reach the handrail because of the plants or shrubs between her and the handrail, and she fell forward to the basement floor ....\n7. That the defendant was negligent in that:\n(a) The treads of the steps in the defendant\u2019s place of business where the plaintiff fell were worn and slick and had been for some time and the defendant was aware or should have been aware that such worn and slick treads existed and were dangerous to their customers and particularly to this plaintiff.\n(b) That although the defendant provided handrails for the safety of its customers descending the stairs, defendant negligently placed plants or shrubs between the handrails and the travel portion of the stairs which made it difficult, if not impossible, to use the handrails in descending the stairs.\n8. That the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid was the proximate cause of the injury and damag\u00e9 to the plaintiff as hereinafter stated.\nAt trial, plaintiff offered evidence that tended to show the following:\nThe stairs leading to the toy department consisted of about ten steps that led to a landing and then two more sets of steps on each side of the landing, one leading to the left and one to the right, each containing about five or six steps to the basement floor. The platform and the steps were well lighted. On the set of steps to the right of the landing were some potted plants next to a handrail. There was one plant on each step, and the plants were located on the right side of these steps. There were no plants on the left hand side of these steps, nor were there any plants on the other set of steps leading from the left side of the landing. Plaintiff chose to descend the steps leading from the right side of the landing and walked near the potted plants. With respect to her falling, plaintiff testified, \u201cI could not reach the rail and when I got to maybe the second or third step I slipped . . . and I tried to get the rail and tore the plants down trying to get the rail and I was close enough to get it if it won\u2019t [sic] covered up . . . The steps had a metal strip on the edge. The condition of the metal strip was worn.\u201d On cross-examination, plaintiff, in response to a question as to whether there was any \u201ckind of substance on the floor,\u201d stated, \u201cNo ... It was slick. It was very slick.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s sister, on cross-examination, testified she did not see any foreign objects or slippery substances on the floor, \u201cbut the metal on the step was slick.\u201d\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the trial court allowed defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiff appealed.\nJosey & McCoy, by H. P. McCoy, Jr., and C. Kitchin Josey for plaintiff appellant.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by William M. Trott, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 39,
  "last_page_order": 45
}
