Case Name: MAUDE SAMS v. HOTEL RALEIGH, Incorporated
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1934-01-24
Citations: 205 N.C. 758
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAUDE SAMS v. HOTEL RALEIGH, Incorporated.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 758–761

Head Matter:
MAUDE SAMS v. HOTEL RALEIGH, Incorporated.
(Filed 24 January, 1934.)
1. Negligence A c — Held: there was no evidence of, defective construction or negligent maintenance of steps, and nonsuit was proper.
In order for an invitee to recover of the owner or lessor of a building for injury resulting from a fall on the steps in the building it is necessary to show defective or negligent construction or maintenance of the steps and the owner’s or lessor’s expressi or implied notice thereof, and where the invitee testifies that she constantly used the steps and that there was nothing unusual in their construction, and that she had never noticed anything wrong with them or loose on them, a nonsuit is correctly entered in her action to recover for injuries sustained in a fall when the heel of her shoe caught in an ordinary metal strip on the edge of the steps.
2. Appeal and Error J e — Exclusion of evidence under facts of this case held not prejudicial.
Where in an action to recover for injuries sustained in fall on steps in building a nonsuit is correctly entered for plaintiff’s failure to establish defective construction or negligent maintenance of steps, the exclusion of evidence that other guests in the building had fallen on the steps becomes immaterial.
Civil actioN, before Cranmer, J., at Second June Term, 1933, of "Wake.
Tbe plaintiff bad a room in tbe defendant hotel and alleged that on 30 January, 1933, at about tbe hour of 9:30 p.m. she came out of her room on tbe third floor of said hotel with tbe intention of descending tbe stairs between tbe third and second floors for tbe purpose of going to tbe room of tbe assistant manager of said hotel, who was ill, to inquire as to bis condition and to secure tbe teaspoons from bis tray which would be needed for bis early breakfast, said meal to be furnished from the coffee shop operated by this plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff bad descended within about seven steps of tbe second floor when tbe heel of her left shoe became caught and bung in tbe edge of a metal strip which tbe defendant bad tacked on tbe outer edge of one of tbe steps of said stairs for tbe purpose of bolding tbe carpet firmly on said stairs; that tbe defendant bad carelessly, recklessly and negligently allowed tbe said metal strip to protrude upward on tbe step to such an extent that a person’s shoe might be caught in tbe knife-like edge thereof; that tbe heel of plaintiff’s left shoe caught in tbe edge of said metal strip so firmly that tbe shoe was forced off plaintiff’s foot and tbe heel off tbe shoe; that tbe tripping . . . over tbe protruding edge of said metal strip caused her to lose her balance and to fall down tbe remaining six steps on tbe way to tbe second floor.
Plaintiff testified: “I thought tbe steps were all right and as I stepped down my foot caught. I grabbed and tried to release my foot and heel. Tbe brass strip caught in my heel and as I went to release my foot my heel pulled down and caught underneath my instep. It is nothing unusual to have brass strips on tbe edge of steps. Tbe brass, according to my best judgment, extended about one inch from tbe outer edge. I don’t think there was anything unusual about tbe width of tbe steps, just like all steps going down in hotels and everywhere else. There was nothing unusual in their construction. ... I did not have my band on tbe rail then because I don’t usually bold a rail as I go down, but when my foot caught I grabbed tbe bandrailing. I stopped when I grabbed tbe handrailing to release my foot. Then tbe strip went into my heel. . . . "While Mr. Eobinson was sick I bad used tbe steps that I fell on. I believe tbe steps are about tbe same in tbe day as tbe night. I used them up- and down. I think they are lighted as well in the day time as the night and the night as well as in the day time. I cannot say I ever noticed anything wrong with the steps on the numerous occasions I had used them. ... I had never observed anything in the world wrong with them. I had never noticed anything loose on the steps. I was rushing up to see how he was. On going back to my business ... I went up those identical steps practically every day while Mr. Eobinson was sick. I did not notice anything wrong about the steps. I did'not observe anything loose.”
There was evidence that the steps were “good, wide steps about 11 or 12 inches wide. There was a nice normal distance between them and were easy steps to walk on, very easy. There was a nice velvet carpet to walk on. There was a broad surface to walk on. They were kept clean and free from obstructions. They were clean at all times.”
The plaintiff proposed to offer evidence to the effect that another person in the hotel had fallen on the stairway leading from the fourth to the fifth floor. This evidence was excluded by the court.
The plaintiff also proposed to show by a witness that, in November preceding the injury to plaintiff, in descending from the third to the second floor that she hung her toe “under the brass strip which tripped me, but I had my hand on the rail and held on and did not fall completely down. "When I reached the office I told Mr. Pate I hung the toe of my shoe in one of the brass strips nailed along the edge of the stairway and had come very near falling.” This evidence was excluded by the court and other evidence of like tenor.
At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence a judgment of nonsuit was sustained and the plaintiff appealed.
Burm & Arendell for plaintiff.
Clyde A. Douglass and J oseph 0. Douglass for defendant.

Opinion:
BbogdeN, J.
The duty imposed upon owners or lessors of buildings to employees and invitees with respect to steps is discussed and pronounced in Farrell v. Thomas & Howard Co., 204 N. C., 631; Batson v. Laundry, ante, 93, and Bohannon, v. Stores Co., 197 N. C., 755, 150 S. E., 356.
In order to establish a breach of duty so imposed the injured party must offer evidence tending to show (a) defective or negligent construction or maintenance; (b) express or implied notice of such defects. Blevins v. Cotton Mills, 150 N. C., 493, 64 S. E., 428; Orr v. Rumbough, 172 N. C., 754, 90 S. E., 911; Craver v. Cotton Mills, 196 N. C., 330, 145 S. E., 570. The plaintiff testified that "there was nothing unusual in their construction. . I cannot say that I ever noticed anything wrong with the steps on the numerous occasions I had used them. I had never observed anything in the world wrong with them. I had never noticed anything loose on the steps."
Applying the accepted principles of law, it appears that there was no evidence of defective construction or negligent maintenance. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and the judgment of nonsuit was correct. Hence exceptions relating to the exclusion of evidence that other guests in the hotel had fallen upon steps therein became immaterial. See Dorsett v. Mfg. Co., 131 N. C., 254, 42 S. E., 612; Conrad v. Shuford, 174 N. C., 719, 94 S. E., 424; McCord v. Harrison-Wright Co., 198 N. C., 742, 153 S. E., 406.
Affirmed.