Court Opinion

ID: 9603126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:03:29.224827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:08.782135
License: Public Domain

McCULLOUGH, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority cites the correct law and appropriate standard for reviewing directed verdicts in negligence and contributory negligence *616cases, but holds that there was sufficient evidence of a question of fact to go to the jury. Because I would hold that there were no questions of fact for the jury, I respectfully dissent.
“As a general proposition, there is no duty to protect a lawful visitor against dangers which are either known to him or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered.” Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 162, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999).
“For issues of contributory negligence, a motion for directed verdict is appropriate when the ‘plaintiff’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, together with inferences favorable to him that may be reasonably drawn therefrom, so clearly establishes the defense of contributory negligence that no other conclusion can reasonably be drawn.’ ” Wilburn v. Honeycutt, 135 N.C. App. 373, 375, 519 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1999) (quoting Peeler v. Railway Co., 32 N.C. App. 759, 760, 233 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1977)).
The majority held that there are factual questions as to whether the condition in the sidewalk was open and obvious, and whether plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person would have acted.
The record shows that the president of Lejeune Motors testified that the place in the parking lot in which plaintiff fell was three-quarters of an inch to an inch deep, eight to twelve inches wide, and several feet long. The judge had photographs that were admitted into evidence which showed the place plaintiff “stubbed her toe” and fell.
In the majority’s review of plaintiff’s testimony, it recites the facts that she was not warned by employees or markers about the potential irregularities in the parking lot. Plaintiff was just looking for her car and fell.
Further review of the record shows the rest of the picture that the trial court had before it. In response to the question of why she did not see the hole, plaintiff testified, “I wasn’t looking for a hole. I was looking for the car.” The record shows that the area in which plaintiff fell was an open area, anywhere from 30 to 70 feet. Plaintiff testified that:
[Plaintiff]: I come out of the door and looked around, and I saw these white cars parked over to the right, and I went over to the right to look for [her car]. *617And I didn’t see it over where they park — they park it at a lot of times, so I looked to the right and looked over that way and finally saw it. About that time, I fell in the hole.
Further testimony followed:
[Question]: All right. Now, you had been to the dealership on numerous occasions, had you not?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: In fact, y’all had bought several cars from this dealership, had you not?
[Plaintiff]: Yes.
[Question]: And on the day in question here, you took [her car] there, I believe, for some maintenance and also a warranty item?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: Now, the weather was dry, pretty, was it not?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: Parking lot at the time of this accident was dry?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: When you left — when you were given the keys to the vehicle — you said you paid your bill and were given the keys?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: And you walked out of the service door?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: Out into the parking lot and took a right; is that right?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: And started looking for your car?
[Plaintiff]: Sure, did.
[Question]: There were no cars parked in the area you were walking in, were there?
[Plaintiff]: No, sir.
*618[Question]: I believe I asked you earlier about the distance. If there were testimony in this case that the distance from the point you were walking out to where the raised — the asphalt is is [sic] about 50 feet — 45 or 50 feet, you would not object to that?
[Plaintiff]: It could be that. I do not know for sure.
[Question]: And while you were walking that distance, whatever it was, you were looking for your car?
[Plaintiff]: Yes, sir.
[Question]: Were you talking to anybody?
[Plaintiff]: No, sir. I was alone.
[Question]: Anything to keep you from looking down to see—
[Plaintiff]: No, sir.
[Question]: —what was on the pavement?
[Plaintiff]: Just looking for the car.
I do not find that sufficient evidence of a question of fact existed and thus would vote to affirm the trial court’s decision. This case seems to be more like Grady v. Penney Co., 260 N.C. 745, 133 S.E.2d 678 (1963). In that case, the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs. There was no sign posted indicating a stairway, and an exit sign previously above the door had been removed. No employee had mentioned or warned the plaintiff of the stairway. Plaintiff admitted to taking two steps on the stairs before falling and that there was nothing to prevent her from seeing the stairs if she had just looked. The Court held that the stairs were in plain view and obvious, and I would hold the same here. Plaintiff had the “capacity to exercise ordinary care for [her] own safety against injury,” and was required by law to do so. See Clark v. Roberts, 263 N.C. 336, 343, 139 S.E.2d 593, 597 (1965).
The majority’s reliance on Barber v. The Presbyterian Hospital, 147 N.C. App. 86, — S.E.2d - (6 November 2001) is misplaced. The plaintiff in Barber was entering a doorway in which the door completely blocked the potential dangerous condition. The first step could not be seen prior to opening the door regardless of due diligence by the plaintiff in keeping a lookout. The step dropped down without warning. Thus, there are no factual similarities between Barber and the instant case where the accident occurred in an open *619parking lot on a clear, dry day with no obstructions in view. Likewise, the majority’s quotation of Walker v. Randolph, 251 N.C. 805, 112 S.E.2d 551 (1960) adds little to the case as there is no evidence of a “sudden condition.” The evidence shows the plaintiff was eye searching the parking lot for her car and was inattentive to where she was walking at the time she fell. See Benton v. Building Co., 223 N.C. 809, 28 S.E.2d 491 (1943).
For the reasons set forth above I would affirm the trial judge’s granting of a directed verdict for defendant as I believe plaintiffs testimony with the other evidence in the record establishes contributory negligence as a matter of law.