{
  "id": 8623745,
  "name": "MELVIN THEODORE WITHERSPOON, JR. v. EDGAR A. OWEN, d/b/a DUFFY'S TAVERN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Witherspoon v. Owen",
  "decision_date": "1959-11-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "169",
  "last_page": "170",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 169"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 3643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.54110559952225e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48767090282097525
    },
    "sha256": "eaac8ceccfa2ed46ff7d28f35dc7b607b91389752b0036fe1e529f78c5236b61",
    "simhash": "1:469582e50405197e",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HiggiNS, J., not .sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MELVIN THEODORE WITHERSPOON, JR. v. EDGAR A. OWEN, d/b/a DUFFY\u2019S TAVERN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per OuRIAm.\nConceding defendant\u2019s duty to protect his patrons against foreseeable assaults by 'others, the patron also had a duty not to needlessly expose himself to danger. Here plaintiff and defendant had equial knowledge. Apparently nothing had transpired which would indicate plaintiff could not descend in safety. So far as appears, the others ahead of him had done eo. But if the conditions were such as to warn defendant that plaintiff might be .assaulted if he attempted to descend, these conditions gave equal warning to plaintiff. He could no more ignore the dangerous condition, if it existed, than could defendant.\nAffirmed.\nHiggiNS, J., not .sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per OuRIAm."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles M. Welling for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Carpenter & Webb for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MELVIN THEODORE WITHERSPOON, JR. v. EDGAR A. OWEN, d/b/a DUFFY\u2019S TAVERN.\n(Filed 4 November, 1959.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 4f(2) \u2014\nWhile a proprietor is under duty to protect his patrons against foreseeable assaults by others, a j>atron is also under duty not to needlessly expose himself to danger, and nonsuit was properly entered in this action by a patron against the proprietor of a restaurant for injuries from an assault by another patron, if not on the ground that the proprietor could not have foreseen the assault, then on the ground that plaintiff attempted to pass the other patron who was belligerent and attempting to block the stairs, and that plaintiff had equal notice with the proprietor if the conditions were such as to give warning of probable assault.\nHiggins, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clarkson, J., March 23, 1959 Schedule B Civil Term, of Mecklenburg.\nPlaintiff seeks compensation for damages resulting from an assault and fall in defendant\u2019s place of business. Defendant denied negligence and pleaded contributory negligence.\nPlaintiff alleged and defendant admitted defendant did business as Duffy\u2019s Tavern, operating a restaurant and dine and dance club open to the public; \u201cthe defendant serves beer to his customers arid also set-ups, that is ice and mix for his customers and patrons to mix alcoholic drinks.\u201d\nPlaintiff, with a party of six others, went to the tavern about 9:30 on Saturday night. They proceeded to the second floor dining room, access \u25a0to which was provided by a stairway four or five feet wide.\nHere they remained until closing time, 1:00 a.m., or later. Using plaintiff\u2019s language: \u201cwe closed them up. . .\u201d While at the tavern the party purchased food and \u201cmix\u201d and consumed the whiskeys they had brought to the tavern.\nAt leaving time plaintiff remained to pay the bill for his party. There were four or five couples ahead of him. He was the last in line. The others of his party did not wait for plaintiff but went down the stairs.\nThe cashier\u2019s desk was located near the head of the stairs. An argument took place between a customer and the cashier. A man wia\u00ae standing at the head of the stairs, blocking traffic during the argument between the customer and the cashier. The person at the head of the stairs was loud and boisterous. The proprietor requested him to leave. Plaintiff testified: \u201cAfter I paid the bill and started to go down the steps, this man was standing and .blocking the steps and I asked him (to let me by. He didn\u2019t let me by. He said, \u2018If you want by, get by.\u2019 I started on by him. I proceeded on by him and when I did, he swung at me and I tried to catch on to something, and I couldn\u2019t find anything else to catch on to so I grabbed hold of him and we rolled down the steps together.\u201d\nDefendant moved for nonsuit iat the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. The motion was allowed and plaintiff .appealed.\nCharles M. Welling for plaintiff, appellant.\nCarpenter & Webb for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0169-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 214
}