Court Opinion

ID: 9855756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:30:23.577121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:59.505916
License: Public Domain

Judge WELLS
dissenting.
I believe the reasoning and logic of our Supreme Court in Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666, 231 S.E. 2d 678 (1977) requires a different result from that reached by the majority. In the case subjudice, plaintiff was able to show that there were frequent and repeated occasions of serious criminal acts on the premises of this particular shopping center. As the majority points out, there were at least thirty-six reported criminal incidents at the mall in *520the year preceding the assault upon plaintiff. The record discloses that in the six months prior to 20 December 1976, there were at least twelve such serious incidents, and that in the month of December, 1976, prior to the date on which plaintiff was assaulted, there had been four such incidents, one of which was an assault on a customer and one of which was a robbery of a customer. The robbery took place in the mall, only one day before plaintiff was assaulted and robbed.
I believe this evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and treated so as to give her the benefit of every reasonable inference to be derived from it, is sufficient to establish the element of foreseeability of harm to plaintiff from criminal activity on the premises of this shopping center. Our courts have held that it is only in exceptional negligence cases that summary-judgment is appropriate, because the rule of the prudent man or other appropriate standards of care must be applied. See Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 380-81, 218 S.E. 2d 379, 382-83 (1975); Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706, 190 S.E. 2d 189, 194 (1972). While the circumstances and facts underlying plaintiff s action may present a novel question of law, I do not believe them to be sufficiently exceptional to take this case out of the rule, and therefore the case should go to the jury.