{ "id": 12167826, "name": "KATHERINE S. BARNES v. HOTEL O.HENRY CORPORATION", "name_abbreviation": "Barnes v. Hotel O.Henry Corp.", "decision_date": "1949-01-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "730", "last_page": "732", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "229 N.C. 730" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "1914 A. 132", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 A. 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 Pa. 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 986593 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/236/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 Mass. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 871855 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/306/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Idaho 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Idaho", "case_ids": [ 4389420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/idaho/59/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 A. 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 Conn. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 1548723 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/121/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 A. 644", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 Pa. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1156665 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/315/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 Mo. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 1894186 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/340/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 A. L. R. 423", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 Neb. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 4716848 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/134/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N. C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E. 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614764 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S. E. 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627603 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0691-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S. E. 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626767 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S. E. 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652162 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S. E. 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. E. 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C. 758", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631270 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0758-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 N. C. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613528 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0577-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 481, "char_count": 6648, "ocr_confidence": 0.525, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.267705536177037e-07, "percentile": 0.9156232660668634 }, "sha256": "886f2c6e3ed113ff4b5e9fa13fa2aca75259513c92e97d8a9c8c9905cb3941aa", "simhash": "1:48fb073394a3d39d", "word_count": 1238 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:54.231798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "KATHERINE S. BARNES v. HOTEL O.HENRY CORPORATION." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "DeNNy, J.\nDid the court below commit error in granting the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit ? We do not think so.\nAn innkeeper is not an insurer of the personal safety of his guests. He is only required to exercise due care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give his guests or invitees warning of any hidden peril. Schwingle v. Kellenberger, 217 N. C. 577, 8 S. E. (2) 918; Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, 205 N. C. 758, 172 S. E. 371; Jones v. Bland, 182 N. C. 70, 108 S. E. 344; Patriele v. Springs, 154 N. C. 270, 70 S. E. 395; 43 C. J. S., Innkeepers, Sec. 22, p. 1173; 28 Amer. Jur., Innkeepers, Sec. 56, p. 578.\nThe appellant is relying on the rule of liability stated in Anderson v. Amusement Co., 213 N. C. 130, 195 S. E. 386; Parker v. Tea Co., 201 N. C. 691, 161 S. E. 209; and Bowden v. Kress, 198 N. C. 559, 152 S. E. 625. An examination of these decisions will disclose that in each case the owner of the store or theatre had applied oil, grease, wax or some similar substance to the floor in an improper, unusual or negligent manner, causing the patron or invitee to fall.\nIn the instant case the plaintiff alleges there was a heavy coat of' wax on the floor where she fell, which had been applied uniformly and smoothly over the entire floor of the vestibule or entrance to the elevators. At the trial, however, she offered no evidence to show what the substance was on the floor or what caused her to fall. Once in her testimony she did state that after she fell she looked around to see what happened and saw what looked like a \u201cdeep furrow\u201d from where her left heel had struck the marble, but at other times she referred to the mark on the floor as \u201cthe skid mark.\u201d There is no evidence to the effect that any unusual material had been used in cleaning or polishing the floor or that such material had been applied in an improper, unusual or negligent manner. In fact, plaintiff offered no evidence tending to show that any substance had been placed on the floor except as it may be inferred from her testimony as to the \u201cdeep furrow\u201d or \u201cskid mark.\u201d On the other hand, she testified that the marble and composition floor in the vestibule where she fell, was no different in its appearance than at other times, in so far as she could see.\nThe fact that a floor is waxed does not constitute evidence of negligence. Nor does the mere fact that one slips and falls on a floor constitute evidence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur does not apply to injuries resulting from slipping or falling on a waxed or oiled floor. Parker v. Tea Co., supra. In order to recover for an injury, resulting from a fall on sucli a floor, it is necessary to show \u201cdefective or negligent construction or maintenance\u201d and \u201cexpress or implied notice of such defects.\u201d Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, supra; Pratt v. Tea Co., 218 N. C. 732, 12 S. E. (2) 242.\nIt seems to be the general rule that an action will not be sustained against the owner or lessee of a building, founded solely upon the fact that a patron or invitee was injured by slipping on a waxed or polished floor, where the floor had been waxed or polished in the usual and customary manner and with material in general use for that purpose. Brown v. Davenport Holding Co., 134 Neb. 455, 279 N. W. 161, 118 A. L. R. 423; Ilgenfritz v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 340 Mo. 648, 101 S. W. (2) 723; McCann v. Gordon, 315 Pa. 367, 172 A. 644; Smith v. Union New Haven Trust Co., 121 Conn. 369, 185 A. 81; Herrick v. Breier, 59 Idaho 171, 82 P. (2) 90; Kay v. Audet, 306 Mass. 337, 28 N. E. (2) 462; Spickernagle v. Woolworth, 236 Pa. 496, 84 A. 909, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 132.\nThe evidence adduced in the trial below, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient to justify its submission to the jury.\nThe ruling of the court below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "DeNNy, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "King & King and II. M. Robinson for plaintiff.", "Smith, Wharton, Sapp & Moore for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KATHERINE S. BARNES v. HOTEL O.HENRY CORPORATION.\n(Filed 7 January, 1949.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 4f (2) \u2014\nAn innkeeper is required only to exercise due care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give his guests warning of any hidden peril.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 4d\u2014\nEvidence that plaintiff slipped and fell upon a waxed or polished floor and that her heel left a \u201cdeep furrow\u201d or \u201cskid mark\u201d on the floor, is insufficient to overrule defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit in the absence of evidence that any unusual material was used on the floor or that it had been applied in an improper, unusual or negligent manner, since res ipsa loquitur does not apply.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bobbitt, J., at September Term, 1948, of Guilford, Greensboro Division.\nThis is a civil action to recover for personal injuries, which the plaintiff alleges she sustained on 29 November, 1946, as the result of a fall caused by a heavy coat of wax on the composition and marble floor in the vestibule at the entrance to the elevators on the third floor of the O.Henry Hotel, in Greensboro, N. C.\nThe plaintiff testified she was a regular guest of the hotel, having lived there for nearly twelve years. She came out of her room on the above date, about 4 :00 p.m., and walked over the strip of carpet in the hall to the vestibule or elevator entrance. When she got to the elevator entrance she looked at the whole area and saw nothing out of the ordinary. As she put her left foot on the marble strip her left heel shot out from under her and it went in sort of \u201cdiagonal position to the left. . . . When I got myself up in a little bit, I looked around to see what happened and I saw what looked to me like a deep furrow from where my left heel had struck the marble, . . . and I punched the bell and went down on the elevator . . ., got off the elevator, and stopped and talked to Mr. Padgett, the assistant manager of the hotel, at the desk. He then went back upstairs with me. When we got back upstairs I showed him the condition I have just stated to the jury, including the skid mark. . . . He said, 'You go on to your room until the doctor comes, and I\u2019ll have this cleaned up right away.\u2019 \u201d\nThe plaintiff further testified that she had gone over the marble and composition floor in this vestibule probably more than seven thousand times; that she had been by this place three, four, five or six times a day for more than ten years; that at this particular time when she approached it, its appearance was no different than at other times, in so far as she could see.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was granted and the plaintiff appeals and assigns error.\nKing & King and II. M. Robinson for plaintiff.\nSmith, Wharton, Sapp & Moore for defendant." }, "file_name": "0730-01", "first_page_order": 784, "last_page_order": 786 }