Case Name: BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1965-09-29
Citations: 265 N.C. 391
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
BEATRICE A. REED v. COLLINS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.
(Filed 29 September, 1965.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Hubbard, J., March 1965 Session of ONSLOW.
Action to recover for personal injuries.
Plaintiff alleges in substance these facts: In the afternoon of 17 June 1963 she entered defendant’s 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 “size of a nickel,” 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.
Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to support most of the allegations of the complaint. Two issues, relating to defendant’s negligence and damages, were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the negligence issue “no.” Judgment in favor of defendant was entered.
Ellis, Hopper, Warlick & Waters for plaintiff.
E. W. Summersill and Strickland Warlick for defendant.

Opinion:
PER Curiam.
Plaintiff brings forward and discusses in her brief eight assignments of error. All relate to the judge's charge. Plaintiff stresses her exception to the failure of the judge to instruct the jury with respect to defendant's duty "to give an invitee notice of any hidden danger or unsafe conditions." Revis v. Orr, 234 N.C. 158, 66 S.E. 2d 652. This principle of law does not arise upon the evidencé. The only evidence in the record which even remotely refers to any warning or failure to warn is the statement of a witness that "at the time Mrs. Reed fell, there were no signs in the store concerning work being done on the floor." 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.
No error.