Case ID: nc_205/html/0032-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beoqden, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARY G. PAYNE v. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.
    (Filed 28 June, 1933.)
    Negligence A e — Res ipsa loquitur does not apply where all facts causing injury are known and testified to.
    Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that she fell while attempting to go down the stairs in her home in the dark after all lights in the house had gone out, and that her fall was caused by her miscalculation of the number of steps to the landing. There was no evidence as to why the lights went out. In her 'action against the power company it is held a judgment as of nonsuit was properly entered, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not applying when all the facts causing the accident are known and testified to at the trial.
    
      Civil actioN, before Alley, J., at Spring Term, 1933, of BuNoombe.
    Tbis suit was instituted for tbe recovery of damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff on or about 3 December, 1931. Sbe alleged tbat “on said date, while'standing in her bedroom on tbe second floor of her bouse at a point not far from her doorway, with tbe intention at tbe moment of going down stairs to her evening meal, tbe light in plaintiff’s bedroom went out; tbat tbe plaintiff did not know at tbis time tbat tbe lights were off throughout tbe entire bouse, but thought tbat tbe electric light bulb in her room bad probably burned out; tbat tbe plaintiff proceeded to a doorway, thus carrying out her intention of going down stairs, and when sbe reached her said doorway, which is at tbe bead of tbe stairway, and was about to begin her descent of tbe stairs, sbe then became aware of tbe fact tbat all of tbe lights in her home, including tbe light which lighted tbe stairsteps were out; . . . tbat all of tbe lights in her home were extinguished and permitted to go out by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, Carolina Power and Light Company, as a result of tbe defendant’s violation of its duty in failing and neglecting to keep its wires and other equipment in proper condition and repair, thereby leaving tbe entire household in complete darkness.” Plaintiff further alleged tbat such negligence was tbe cause of her fall and injury.
    Plaintiff testified: “I bad laid my work down and bad decided to go down stairs at tbat time to tbe evening meal . . . when tbe lights went out in my room. I did not know tbe lights were out all over tbe bouse. I decided there was some little something wrong with my globe. . . . I bad made up my mind to go down, just started on to tbe door. I am familiar with all tbe furniture and objects in my bedroom. . . . When I learned tbat tbe lights were out which lighted tbe stairway and tbe bouse outside my room, I bad gone out of my room to tbe stairway which is right at tbe bead of my room, right at tbe door of my room. . . . When I got to tbe door I saw tbe lights were off, but I was right at tbe bead of tbe stairs. I just put my band on tbe railing post, and undertook to go down tbe steps. Tbe way didn’t appear dangerous to me, as I felt tbat I knew tbe way down. I just put my bands on tbe railing and went down, but I lacked one step before stepping on tbe platform or landing. I stepped over tbat step, thinking I was on tbe landing, tbat one step I lacked is what threw me against tbe wall. ... I thought I bad reached tbe landing when I lacked tbat one step being on tbe landing. . . . Tbe reason I fell was because I thought I was on tbe bottom when I really was not.” Tbe evidence tended to show tbat tbe plaintiff received painful injuries, and tbat sbe was a customer of defendant by virtue of tbe fact tbat tbe defendant was undertaking to furnish lights to tbe residence of plaintiff and other citizens of tbe community.
    
      There is no evidence as to why the lights went out.
    The cause was tried in the county court, and was nonsuited. Upon appeal to the Superior Court a judgment of nonsuit was affirmed, and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      R. Hilliard Greenwood for plaintiff.
    
    
      Harhins, Tan Winkle & Walton and Phillips & Arledge for defendant.
    
   Beoqden, J.

As the plaintiff starts down the stairs of her home for supper, the lights go out. She reaches the side of the stairway and immediately becomes aware of the fact that none of the lights in the house are burning. Notwithstanding she undertakes to go down stairs in the dark, misses her step, falls and is injured. She said: “The reason I fell was because I thought I was on the bottom when really I wasn’t.” The plaintiff relies upon res ipsa loquitur to make out a case. This principle has no application “when all the facts causing the accident are known and testified to by the witness at the trial.” Springs v. Doll, 197 N. C., 240, 148 S. E., 251. Consequently the judgment is correct.

Affirmed.