{
  "id": 8559186,
  "name": "ESSIE SELLERS v. JOHNIE W. VEREEN T/A VEREEN'S RED & WHITE FOOD STORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sellers v. Vereen",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 N.C. 307"
    }
  ],
  "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": "132 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 392",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574911
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "395"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S.E. 2d 717",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624576
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "304"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 5201,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.989180012584971e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46380966612339175
    },
    "sha256": "ebde3dee1971d8a637c02afb0ffe2b3082131645eb18d7e4c1de55e6cf24854d",
    "simhash": "1:73f28f07f36c1448",
    "word_count": 899
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:43.953535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Moore, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ESSIE SELLERS v. JOHNIE W. VEREEN T/A VEREEN\u2019S RED & WHITE FOOD STORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere is no evidence (or allegation) that, the chair was defective or that the lighting was insufficient. Nor is there evidence the floor in the vicinity of this chair or elsewhere-was in an unsafe condition.\nThere is no evidence of hidden defects or dangers. All the evidence tends to show it was obvious the chair was a light, lawn-type chair, and that plaintiff was fully aware of this fact. A failure to warn of risks of which a person has knowledge is without significance. Petty v. Print Works, 243 N.C. 292, 304, 90 S.E. 2d 717. \u201cDefendant 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.\u201d Harrison v. Williams, 260 N.C. 392, 395, 132 S.E. 2d 869, and cases cited.\nIn our opinion, the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was insufficient to warrant submission of an issue to the jury as to the alleged actionable negligence of defendant. Accordingly, the judgment of involuntary nonsuit is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMoore, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Herring, Walton, Parker & Powell for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Frink & Prevatte for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ESSIE SELLERS v. JOHNIE W. VEREEN T/A VEREEN\u2019S RED & WHITE FOOD STORE.\n(Filed 11 May, 1966.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 37b\u2014\nA proprietor is not under duty to warn an invitee of risks which are obvious.\n2. Same\u2014\nA proprietor owes an invitee the legal duty to maintain the aisles and passageways of its place of business in such condition as a reasonably careful and prudent person would deem sufficient to protect patrons from danger while exercising ordinary care for their own safety.\n3. Negligence \u00a7 37f\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that plaintiff customer, in attempting to sit in a light lawn chair in the aisle of defendant\u2019s store, placed her hands on the arms of the chair and was pressing down on the arms preparatory to sitting in -the chair when it slipped from under her, causing personal injury, held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence.\nMoore, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Mallard, J., December 1965 Session of Brunswick.\nPlaintiff instituted this civil action to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained May 20, 1961, about 2:00 p.m., when she, a customer in defendant\u2019s food store, fell while attempting to sit down in a chair.\nPlaintiff alleged and defendant admitted: The concrete floor of the store was covered with smooth tile. The chair was \u201can aluminum lawn-type chair which did not have any \u2018legs\u2019 as such but which was supported by half-circle aluminum hollow tubes extending from underneath the arm rests on either side of said chair down to the floor and back under said chair.\u201d\nPlaintiff alleged in gist that defendant negligently placed or permitted the chair in the customer area of his store, without giving warning of its inherent dangers and without securing it to the floor, and that defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the chair would cause, or be likely to cause, injury to plaintiff or other customers of the store.\nPlaintiff and her doctor were the only witnesses.\nPlaintiff\u2019s testimony is summarized, except when quoted, as follows:\nShe saw the chair when she and her husband entered the store. Later, while her husband was \u201cat the meat counter,\u201d she came back to the chair. While lawn-type chairs were on display across the front outside the building, \u201c(t)here was just one chair sitting there in the aisle . . .\u201d Plaintiff testified: \u201cThere was nothing around the chair. It was sitting at the end of this counter, kind of off at the end of the counter. It was by itself.\u201d The chair was from eight to twelve feet from \u201cthe check-out place\u201d where defendant as cashier was checking out customers.\nThe chair \u201cwas made out of plastic material, the type people use for lawn or porch chairs.\u201d The metal was \u201ca light material.\u201d She \u201cdid not notice anything unusual about the chair other than it looked like one of those lawn-type chairs.\u201d She \u201cdidn\u2019t see anything wrong with the floor when (she) looked at it.\u201d It was \u201cjust a tile floor with plastic squares.\u201d She \u201cdid not have any trouble walking on the floor and if it was slick (she) never noticed it.\u201d\nAs to what occurred when she attempted to sit down in the chair, plaintiff testified: \u201cI walked up to the chair and then backed up to it. I put my hands on the arm rests and the chair popped out from under me and I hit the floor.\u201d Again: \u201cI walked up to the chair and turned around to it and put my hands on the arms of the chair . . . I did not touch the chair with anything but my hands. As I was assuming a sitting position I pressed down on the arms of the chair. I was just pressing straight down like you would and it just popped right out from under me. There was no other part of my body touching the chair at that time other than my hands.\u201d\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the court, allowing defendant\u2019s motion therefor, entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nHerring, Walton, Parker & Powell for plaintiff appellant.\nFrink & Prevatte for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 343,
  "last_page_order": 345
}