{ "id": 8525641, "name": "JOHN C. JAMES v. CAROLYN HONEYCUTT d/b/a TOPS AND BOTTOMS and WILLIAM F. HONEYCUTT", "name_abbreviation": "James v. Honeycutt", "decision_date": "1985-11-19", "docket_number": "No. 858SC484", "first_page": "824", "last_page": "826", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.C. App. 824" } ], "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": "268 S.E. 2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564386 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0669-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 321, "char_count": 6019, "ocr_confidence": 0.818, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2055559995968877 }, "sha256": "1fdab2dda8572c03314c1cf1bba6b54dc7f8e879c98653353c1b28e075dedfca", "simhash": "1:433d52b0f22f1dff", "word_count": 985 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:01.691260+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur." ], "parties": [ "JOHN C. JAMES v. CAROLYN HONEYCUTT d/b/a TOPS AND BOTTOMS and WILLIAM F. HONEYCUTT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nBy his first and third assignments of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and denying plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict as to this issue, because as a matter of law there was insufficient evidence to support a jury finding of contributory negligence. We disagree.\nFor contributory negligence to apply, it is not necessary that plaintiff have actual knowledge of the danger of injury to which his conduct exposes him; plaintiff may be contributorily negligent if his conduct ignores unreasonable risks or dangers which would have been apparent to a prudent person exercising ordinary care for his own safety. Smith v. Fiber Controls, Corp., 300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E. 2d 504 (1980).\nIn the present case, a jury could conclude, based on the evidence presented at trial, that plaintiff was aware or should have been aware of the \u201cwobbly\u201d condition of the step and that his injury was proximately caused by his negligent use of that step. Although plaintiff testified that he did not know of any defect in the step before the accident, Officer Vernon testified that he had been up and down the same steps many times before the incident in question, and that he had noticed and was aware of the fact that the step was \u201ca little bit wobbly.\u201d Officer Colie testified that after the incident in question he examined the steps by walking up and down them and that one step would move under his weight. Plaintiff testified that he had gone up and down the steps in question many times over many years before the accident and that he had not noticed anything wrong with the step. From the evidence given in the case, the jury could reasonably infer that the step which caused plaintiffs fall was \u201ca little bit wobbly\u201d before the accident and had been so for a considerable period of time. The jury could also reasonably infer that plaintiff had climbed the same steps many times before the accident and the step was \u201ca little bit wobbly\u201d when he climbed them. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that plaintiff knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the step, and his continued use of the step when he knew or ought to have known of its condition was negligence and such negligence was a proximate cause of his fall and subsequent injury. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge was correct in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nIn his remaining assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the issue of contributory negligence by failing to apply the law to the evidence. After generally discussing the law relating to contributory negligence, the judge listed the specific acts which defendants contended constituted contributory negligence in this case. This is not, as plaintiff argues, a case where the judge failed to relate to the jury specific acts or omissions arising from the evidence which would constitute negligence. Therefore, we hold that the court\u2019s instructions were correct.\nNo error.\nJudges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kornegay & Head, P.A., by Janice S. Head and G. Russell Komegay, III, for plaintiff, appellant.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by Robin K. Vinson and C. Ernest Simons, Jr., for defendants, ap-pellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN C. JAMES v. CAROLYN HONEYCUTT d/b/a TOPS AND BOTTOMS and WILLIAM F. HONEYCUTT\nNo. 858SC484\n(Filed 19 November 1985)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 34.1\u2014 fall on loose step \u2014contributory negligence \u2014evidence sufficient\nIn an action arising from a fall by a police officer on the rear steps of defendants\u2019 store, the trial court correctly submitted contributory negligence to the jury and denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict on that issue where other officers testified that they observed that the step in question was wobbly and would move, and plaintiff testified that he had been up and down the steps many times over many years and had not noticed anything wrong with the step. The jury could reasonably infer that plaintiff had climbed the steps many times before the accident and knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 38\u2014 fall on loose step \u2014instruction on contributory negligence proper\nThe trial court did not err in its instructions on contributory negligence in an action arising from a fall by a police officer on the steps of defendants\u2019 store where the court generally discussed the law relating to contributory negligence and listed the specific acts which defendants contended constituted contributory negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Strickland, Judge. Judgment entered 5 October 1984 in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 November 1985.\nThis is a civil action wherein plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell while attempting to descend steps leading to the rear door of the retail establishment owned by defendants.\nThe evidence at trial tended to show that plaintiff and other officers of the Mount Olive police force, with the approval of defendants, had been checking the doors of defendants\u2019 retail establishment nightly for several years and that one of the steps leading to the rear entrance of this business had been \u201ca little bit wobbly.\u201d Plaintiff testified that after checking the door on 7 February 1982, one step \u201cturned over\u201d while he was descending these steps and he fell, thereby injuring himself. Although plaintiff denied that he had ever observed the condition of these steps, another police officer testified that the instability was noticeable when climbing the steps.\nOver the objection of plaintiff, the trial judge submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. The jury found that defendants had been negligent and plaintiff had been contributorily negligent. From judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.\nKornegay & Head, P.A., by Janice S. Head and G. Russell Komegay, III, for plaintiff, appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by Robin K. Vinson and C. Ernest Simons, Jr., for defendants, ap-pellees." }, "file_name": "0824-01", "first_page_order": 856, "last_page_order": 858 }