{
  "id": 8575463,
  "name": "BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reed v. Collins Department Store, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1965-09-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 N.C. 391"
    }
  ],
  "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": "66 S.E. 2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20669776500483233
    },
    "sha256": "f0881fa9d353277e73b56e480d1839797939b019f942ecc7018dfcab0818a109",
    "simhash": "1:c698b1a3814bc6fa",
    "word_count": 343
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Curiam.\nPlaintiff brings forward and discusses in her brief eight assignments of error. All relate to the judge\u2019s charge. Plaintiff stresses her exception to the failure of the judge to instruct the jury with respect to defendant\u2019s duty \u201cto give an invitee notice of any hidden danger or unsafe conditions.\u201d Revis v. Orr, 234 N.C. 158, 66 S.E. 2d 652. This principle of law does not arise upon the evidenc\u00e9. The only evidence in the record which even remotely refers to any warning or failure to warn is the statement of a witness that \u201cat the time Mrs. Reed fell, there were no signs in the store concerning work being done on the floor.\u201d There is no evidence that any work was then being done on the floor; the evidence is to the contrary. Furthermore, the exception is not valid for other reasons. We have carefully considered all assignments of error and we find in them no merit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ellis, Hopper, Warlick & Waters for plaintiff.",
      "E. W. Summersill and Strickland Warlick for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.\n(Filed 29 September, 1965.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hubbard, J., March 1965 Session of ONSLOW.\nAction to recover for personal injuries.\nPlaintiff alleges in substance these facts: In the afternoon of 17 June 1963 she entered defendant\u2019s department store for the purpose of purchasing lamps. As she was walking along the center customer aisle of the store she stepped on a glob of wax, about the \u201csize of a nickel,\u201d slipped, fell to the floor, and suffered injuries to her person. About 45 minutes before, an employee of defendant had waxed the floor. He had negligently failed to properly spread this spot of wax, and defendant negligently permitted it to remain on the floor without giving warning of its presence.\nPlaintiff introduced evidence tending to support most of the allegations of the complaint. Two issues, relating to defendant\u2019s negligence and damages, were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the negligence issue \u201cno.\u201d Judgment in favor of defendant was entered.\nEllis, Hopper, Warlick & Waters for plaintiff.\nE. W. Summersill and Strickland Warlick for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}