{
  "id": 8566089,
  "name": "BERTIE GRIMES v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grimes v. Home Credit Co.",
  "decision_date": "1967-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "610",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "271 N.C. 608"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 A.L.R. 2d 591",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622402
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615052
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 717",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614544
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 550",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558336
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "181"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167826
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731-32"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 S.E. 2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N.C. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607835
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8577195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0733-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560382
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627331
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0599-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 5738,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.241899761635596e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6080935606670504
    },
    "sha256": "eede016b2eac975114a4d978679c816e6038f1ea168511d3e1948075ce36e2b4",
    "simhash": "1:f243ad888e077d70",
    "word_count": 990
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:10.850261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BERTIE GRIMES v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiff\u2019s first assignment of error is:\n\u201cThat the court erred in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence, when it refused to allow the plaintiff to testify to a conversation with an employee of the defendant, said conver-.s\u00e1tion having on a short time' after the plaintiff\u2019s fall and before she left the premises. ExceptioN No. 2 (R. p. 15).\u201d\nThis statement of th$ assignment ignores Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. An assignment of error to the admission or exclusion of evidence must include so much of that testimony as will enable the Court to understand the question sought to be presented without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself. Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E. 2d 634; Bridges v. Graham, 246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E. 2d 492; 1 Strong, N. C. Index, Appeal and Error \u00a7 23 (Supp.) (1957). Notwithstanding appellant\u2019s failure to comply with the rule, because of the brevity of the record, we have considered the assignment and find it to be without merit.\nThe statements of \u201cthe girl who was employed at the Home Credit Company\u201d that she herself had almost slipped and that the janitor had waxed the floor the night before were merely narrative of past occurrences. It was, therefore, incompetent hearsay as against her employer, the defendant. Edwards v. Hamill, 266 N.C. 304, 145 S.E. 2d 884; Branch v. Dempsey, 265 N.C. 733, 145 S.E. 2d 395; Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.C. 368, 8 S.E. 2d 199. Even if this evidence had been admitted without objection, the judgment of nonsuit would have still been inevitable.\n\u201cThe 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 ipso loquitur does not apply to injuries resulting from slipping or falling on a waxed or oiled floor.\u201d Barnes v. Hotel Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 731-32, 51 S.E. 2d 180, 181.\nAccord, Hedrick v. Tigniere, 267 N.C. 62, 147 S.E. 2d 550; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E. 2d 717. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence, including that which was excluded, merely tends to show that the floor in defendant\u2019s place of business had been waxed and polished. Evidence that the wax had been applied other than in the usual and customary manner is lacking. It shows neither an excessive quantity used nor any \u201cunusual patch of wax\u201d left on the floor. See Copeland v. Phthisic, 245 N.C. 580, 96 S.E. 2d 697; Lee v. Green & Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E. 2d 33; annot., 63 A.L.R. 2d 591 (1959).\nThe judgment of nonsuit is'\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Turner and Harrison for -plaintiff appellant.",
      "White and A-ycock for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BERTIE GRIMES v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA.\n(Filed 18 October, 1967.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 49-\nAppellant must make the record disclose what the excluded evidence would have been in order for the appellate court to determine whether its exclusion was prejudicial.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 SI\u2014\nImmediately after plaintiff had slipped and fallen on the floor of defendant\u2019s store, defendant\u2019s employee stated that she had almost slipped down herself and that the janitor had waxed the floor the night before. Held: The testimony of what the girl said was properly excluded as a narrative of past events.\n8. Negligence \u00a7 37f\u2014\nEvidence that plaintiff fell to her injury on the waxed floor of defendant\u2019s place of business, without evidence that the wax had been applied other than in the usual and eustomaiy manner or that an excessive quantity of wax had been used or that any unusual patches of wax were left on the floor, is insuf\u00f1cient to resist nonsuit.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cohoon, J., 25 May 1967 Civil Session of LENOIR.\nAction for personal injuries.\nIn her complaint, plaintiff alleges: On 10 November 1962, plaintiff entered defendant\u2019s place of business .as \u201can invitee and customer.\u201d In walking across the floor to the counter she slipped and fell on the tile floor to which an excessive amount of wax had been applied. Notwithstanding defendant\u2019s knowledge of this condition, it permitted the wax to remain on the floor and failed to warn plaintiff of the hazard. Plaintiff\u2019s kneecap was broken in the fall. As a result of this painful and permanent injury, she lost wages and incurred medical expenses for which she is entitled to recover damages.\nAnswering, defendant denied all plaintiff\u2019s allegations of negligence, alleged that it had used \u201ca non-skid wax\u201d on its floor, and averred that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence in that she (1) \u201cfailed to keep a proper lookout while walking upon a perfectly clean and smooth- floor\u201d; (2) \u201cfailed to place her feet securely on the floor\u201d; and (3) \u201cpermitted or caused herself to get off balance and to fall.\u201d\nUpon the trial, plaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show: Plaintiff had an account with defendant and, about 9:30 a.m. on 10 November 1962, she went to its place of business to get a check which was being held for her at the counter. The floor was \u201creal shiny with wax.\u201d Plaintiff was wearing \u201cflats\u201d \u2014 shoes with flat heels. Just as she walked in the door her foot slipped; she fell and fractured her left kneecap. As she got up from the floor, a \u201cgirl who was employed at the Home Credit Company said something to (her).\u201d Defendant\u2019s objection to what the girl said was sustained. In the absence of the jury, plaintiff testified that just as she was getting up, she said to the girl, \u201cThis is a slick floor.\u201d The girl\u2019s reply was, \u201cIt sure is; I have almost slipped down myself.\u201d Then she added that \u201cthe janitor had waxed the floor the night before.\u201d\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the court dismissed the action \u201cas in the case of involuntary nonsuit,\u201d and plaintiff appealed.\nTurner and Harrison for -plaintiff appellant.\nWhite and A-ycock for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 642,
  "last_page_order": 644
}