{ "id": 8574911, "name": "BETTY HARRISON v. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, JR., Trading and Doing Business as HENRY'S DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT and TRAILER PARK", "name_abbreviation": "Harrison v. Williams", "decision_date": "1963-10-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "392", "last_page": "397", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 392" } ], "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": "65 A.L.R. 2d 471", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.W. 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 809", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0809-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S.E. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625003 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 A.L.R. 2d 741", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621033 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621351 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0706-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 S.E. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625450 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0391-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 663, "char_count": 12843, "ocr_confidence": 0.408, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.9422404151352944e-07, "percentile": 0.8482033122394395 }, "sha256": "fa7fd25e1e53c8d6cb6febb54581f6c5527b0f87e098448b73009f4302cffa0d", "simhash": "1:2547add39a36db5d", "word_count": 2098 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BETTY HARRISON v. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, JR., Trading and Doing Business as HENRY\u2019S DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT and TRAILER PARK." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nThe only question is whether the court erred ,in granting defendant\u2019s motion for judgment \u00a1of involuntary nonsuit. Decision depends upon whether the evidence, when \u00a1considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff\u2019s fall and injuries were proximately \u00a1caused by the negligence of defendant.\nIt is unnecessary to restate the familiar and well .settled general legal principles pertinent to decision on this appeal. This has been \u00a1done in numerous oases including the following: Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., 240 N.C. 391, 82 S.E. 2d 365; Sledge v. Wagoner, 248 N.C. 631, 104 S.E. 2d 195; Skipper v. Cheatham, 249 N.C. 706, 107 S.E. 2d 625; Garner v. Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E. 2d 461, 81 A.L.R. 2d 741.\nDefendant contends pl-aintiff fell in a portion of his premises not designed for .use by patrons and was not an invitee with reference to the place where she fell. However, there was evidence that patrons of the dining rooms frequently went into, the kitchen area of the premises to pay /their bills. Too, there was evidence that plaintiff, having obtained change for the express purpose of buying cigarettes, was proceeding as directed by defendant\u2019s employee. Cupita v. Country Club, 252 N.C. 346, 113 S.E. 2d 712, cited by defendant, is readily distinguishable. In our view, there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that plaintiff was an invitee at the time and place of her fall and injury.\nDefendant owed plaintiff, as invitee, the legal duty to maintain the aisles and passageways of its place of business in such condition as a reasonably careful and prudent proprietor would deem sufficient to protect patrons from danger while exercising ordinary care for their own safety. Skipper v. Cheatham, supra; Sledge v. Wagoner, 250 N.C. 559, 109 S.E. 2d 180.\n\u201cGenerally, in the absence of some unusual condition, the employment of a step by the owner of a building because of a difference between levels is not a violation oif any duty to invitees.\u201d Benton v. Building Co., 223 N.C. 809, 28 S.E. 2d 491; Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., supra; Garner v. Greyhound Corp., supra.\n\u201cDifferent floor levels .in private and public buildings, connected by steps, are so common that the possibility of their presence is anticipated by prudent persons. The construction is not negligent unless, by its character, location or surrounding conditions, -a reasonably prudent person would not be likely to expect a step or see it.\u201d Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc. (Mich.), 246 N.W. 57. This statement is quoted with approval in Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., supra, and in Garner v. Greyhound Corp., supra. The mere fact there was a step downward or change in floor level raises mo inference of negligence against defendant. Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., supra; Annotation: 65 A.L.R. 2d 471, 482.\nPlaintiff alleged the area in which the step was located \u201cwas not adequately lighted.\u201d She alleged defendant was negligent in that he failed to provide sufficient light to disclose the step and failed otherwise to give warning thereof .and that, absent .sufficient lighting or warning, the step constituted a dangerous condition, and that in these respects defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe aisle or passageway for use of his invitees-customers.\nThere was no allegation or evidence that the /step was defective in any respect. Plaintiff alleged it was \u201ca steep .step downward,\u201d descending from \u201cone floor level down several inches to another floor level.\u201d (Our \u00bfbalice).\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence .tend\u00ae to show -there was a step downward. No evidence was offered purporting to describe the step. The evidence is vague 'a\u00a9 to its exact location. There is to evidence as to the difference in floor levels. If .the difference in floor levels was sufficient to- constitute \u00a1notice of the step, this legal principle would ibe pertinent: \u201cWhere a 'Condition, of premises is obvious to any ordinarily intelligent person, generally there -is no duty on the part of the owner of the premises to warn of that condition.\u201d Benton v. Building Co., supra; Reese v. Piedmont, Inc., supra. Plaintiff testified she \u201cwas thoroughly familiar with the lay-out of that Drive-In.\u201d However*, she also testified \u00a1she \u201chad not been around that direction before.\u201d\nPlaintiff relies primarily upon her contention that the 'aisle or passageway she was directed to use, particularly the step, was insufficiently lighted. She 'alleged the .area where the cigarette vending machine was located \u201cwas dimly lighted\u201d and that the- step' \u201ccould not be clearly seen or detected in the dim and insufficient light.\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s husband testified the cigarette vending machine was in the area referred to as .the Grill; that the cash .register was in the Grill; and that \u201cyou had to- goi through the kitchen to gat to the Grill.\u201d Presumably, although here as elsewhere the evidence is vague, there is no partition (between the 'area referred1 to as the kitchen -and the area referred to as the Grill. No evidence indicates the dimensions of kitchen, Grill or any other portion of defendant\u2019s place of business. No. evidence indicates the height, length, etc., .of the counter \u00a1referred to' in plaintiff\u2019s testimony. (Note: No diagram or photograph was offered to illustrate or explain testimony.)\nPlaintiff testified \u201c (-i)t was dark in there\u201d when she \u00a1started to come around the counter; .that \u00a1she \u201c\u00a1didn\u2019t see the step-down\u201d; that she \u201cdidn\u2019t realize there was a step there\u201d; and that \u201c (t)here was' overhead light, 'but in that cornel* there was not.\u201d On eross-examination she testified: \u201cThe floor was not well lighted. At the floor there was no light. There were overhead lights. I didn\u2019t look up to see what kind. There was not light enough where I stepped down. ... I am saying it was not light enough for me to \u00a1see .it automatically when I walked around -the corner. I didn\u2019t know the \u00a1step-down was -there, and there were no \u00a1signs to .indicate there was one there.\u201d\nMary Hines, a witness for plaintiff and a former employee of defendant, testified: \u201c(T)'here were fiourescent lights overhead from the Grill but not over the 'step\u201d; that \u201c (t)-here were three \u00a1but most of the time \u00a1only one on\u201d; and tlhiat \u00a1she- was not working, was not present and did \u00a1mat know -what lights were on when plaintiff fell Plaintiff offered mo evidence as to. the location of the three overhead fiourescemt lights, or as to how many were burning on the acoasi-ani of plaintiff\u2019s .fall.\nThe word \u201cdark,\u201d a relative term, used .by plaintiff on direct examination, must be considered with plaintiff\u2019s testimony on cross-examination that \u201cit was not light enough for (her) to. see it automatically when (she) walked around the corner.\u201d (Our italics). This testimony suggests that plaintiff by the exercise of due care could have observed the .step but failed to do so. Plaintiff\u2019s husband and Mootford had been patrons of defendant\u2019s place of business on numerous prior occasions. Although they arrived on the scene shortly after plaintiff fell, they did not testify with reference to the step or with reference .to the location and number of lights.\nObviously, precise factual evidence was available. Suffice to say, plaintiff did not offer such evidence.\nThe conclusion -reached is that .the vague and indefinite evidence offered by plaintiff fails to disclose facts -essential to a determination as to plaintiff\u2019s right to recover. Hence, on account of plaintiff\u2019s failure to offer sufficient evidence to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendant, the judgment of involuntary nonsuit is -affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wm. K. Rhodes, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.", "Royce S. McClelland and L. Bradford Tillery for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BETTY HARRISON v. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, JR., Trading and Doing Business as HENRY\u2019S DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT and TRAILER PARK.\n(Filed 30 October 1963.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 37a\u2014\nEvidence that -patrons of defendant\u2019s dining room frequently went into the kitchen are-a of the .premises to pay their -bills and that on -the occasion in question plaintiff was directed by defendant\u2019s employee to go into that area to purchase cigarettes at a vending machine, held, sufficient to isupp-ort a finding that plaintiff was >an invitee at the time and place of her fall in the kitchen area.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 37b\u2014\nA proprietor owes his -invit-easi the legal duty to maintain title aisles and- passageways of his place of business in -such condition as a reasonably careful and prudent person would deem sufficient to protect patrons from danger wliile exercising ordinary care for tbeir own safety.\n3. Same\u2014\nOrdinarily, the existence of a step between floor levels raises no inference of negligence on Ms part of the proprietor.\n4. Negligence \u00a7 37f\u2014\nEvidence to the effect that plaintiff, in going as directed by defendant\u2019s employee to .purchase cigarettes at a vending machine, failed to see a step downward between floor levels because the area was \u201cdimly lighted,\u201d without evidence as to the amount, kind, or location of the lights then burning or the difference in the floor levels, is held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence.\nAppeal by -plaintiff from Parker, J., May Civil Session 1963 of New HANOVER.\nPlaintiff's action is -to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained ais .a result of a fall while in defendant\u2019s place of business, known' as \u201cHenry\u2019s Dxive-In Restaurant and Trailer Park,\u201d located on the west aide of Highway #421, south of Wilmington, N. C. Defendant was engaged in the business of \u201cpreparing and serving to \u2018Drive-In -and diming -room\u2019 customers plate lunches, sandwiches, cigarettes, -soft drinks, and other lawful beverages.\u201d\nPlaintiff alleged her fall and injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant in respects -referred to- in the opinion.\nAnswering, defendant denied negligence and conditionally pleaded the -contributory negligence of plaintiff.\nThe only evidence was that offered by plaintiff. Exclusive of the testimony of a doctor, /the evidence consists of the testimony of (1) plaintiff, (2) Michael A. Harrison, plaintiff\u2019s husband, (3) George Montford, and (4) Mary Hines. The pertinent evidence -as to plaintiff\u2019s /actions prior to her fal-1 and -injury, summarized or quoted, is set forth below.\nOn the night of September 5, 1961, Mr. Montford, accompanied 'by plaintiff -and her husband, -drove to- defendant\u2019s place of business. They arrived \u201c-about 8:40\u201d and parked \u201calmost in front of the main dining room.\u201d While so parked, a 7-Up was ordered for each of the men- and a Coca-Cola for plaintiff. They were served. Two \u201cgirls,\u201d Mrs. Lou Hall and Mo\u00ae. Sadie West, were waiting on the -customers in the parked cars.\nA \u201cfew minutes\u201d \u2014 \u201cabout 15 -or 20 minutes\u201d after their -arrival, plaintiff -told her -husband she -was going to the ladies\u2019 rest room and got out of -the oar. Since \u201cthe girls were mighty -busy and yo-u could not flag or yell them d-own,\u201d plaintiff\u2019\u00ae husband banded -her a dollar bill and -asked her to bring him \u201ca pack of cigarettes.\u201d\nPlaintiff \u201chad been, in \u00a1this Drive-In on numerous occasions before /this accident\u201d but she and \u00a1those with heir had always gone \u201cin the second dining room to eat.\u201d On this occasion, \u2019plaintiff entered \u201cthe main dining room.\u201d The ladies' room was in \u201cthe large dining room.\u201d When' plaintiff \u201cwas there before,\u201d there \u201cwas a cigarette machine in the lower comer\u201d but \u201cit was missing.\u201d No one was in \u201cthis Dining Room.\u201d She looked for a waitress but there w>as no waitress in the dining room (s). The \u201cgirls\u201d were outside. On previous occasions, \u00a1plaintiff and her husband had gotten .their own cigarettes \u201cout \u00a1of the machines.\u201d\nBetween the main or large dining room and .the kitchen -area, there was a \u201csmall dlinimg room,\u201d sometimes \u00a1reiferred to as the \u201csecond dining room.\u201d Plaintiff walked \u201cthrough the large dining room, . . . through the small dining room to the kitchen.\u201d There she found a girl known to her as \u201cAnn,\u201d who was sitting \u201cat a little counter, . . . sitting there working.\u201d Plaintiff told Ann \u00a1she wanted to get some cigarettes, handed Ann .the dollar and Ann gave plaintiff the change. Ann told plaintiff \"the cigarette machine is down there,\u201d pointing to. the end of the counter. Ann, the only girl \u201cin there,\u201d had her bands full. Plaintiff walked \u201cinto the area between the kitchen and the counter by direction.\u201d When plaintiff \u201cstarted to. come around the counter,\u201d she \u201cdidn\u2019t see the \u00a9tap-down\u201d 'and fell.\nOther evidence \u00a1bearing upon the alleged negligence of defendant will \u00a1be \u00a1set forth in .the opinion.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the court, allowing defendant's motion therefor, entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nWm. K. Rhodes, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nRoyce S. McClelland and L. Bradford Tillery for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0392-01", "first_page_order": 432, "last_page_order": 437 }