Court Opinion

ID: 9574750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:07:44.932899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:31.949712
License: Public Domain

Moohe, J.,
Dissenting. The evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and the inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom are, in my opinion, sufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence.
In the maj ority opinion the decision is made to turn on the following conclusion: “There is no evidence that defendants placed or permitted the hole to be near the back entrance to their clinic, or that they knew anything about it. . . . There is no evidence as to how long the hole had been there, or what caused it to be there.” There *375is the further conclusion that there is an insufficient showing that thé hole had existed for á sufficient time to give defendants constructive notice of its existence. With these conclusions I disagree.
Defendant, Dr. Albert Kossove, testified that he and his co-diefend-ant had practiced their profession in Charlotte for 20 years and that their clinic had been in this location for 18 years and that plaintiff had been coming to the clinic about a year. He stated further: “I never sowed any grass on that lot. As far as I recollect, it was the same grass that' had been growing out there or volunteered since I bought -the premises about 18 years ago. . . . During that 18 years I have had the grass cut or mowed or trimmed almost every week.” Plaintiff testified: “When I stepped on the last step there was grass there and I stepped into the grass and the front part of my foot went into a hole .... I was looking down. I saw the grassy area. . . . I did not see the hole in which I stepped. I was looking but I did not see anything. There was high grass all around the step, .... I would say the grass was approximately eight to twelve inches high. ... In answer to the question what portion of my foot went into the hole, which I testified about, I am pointing from the tip up to here, which I would think is approximately four to six inches. ... I stepped from the last step to the ground and my foot went into a hole, but I did not see it because the grass was so high. . . . the grass was high and thick and rather dense around there. I could not see anything except the grass. ... I had been up and down those steps and stepped on the grass immediately in front of the steps at least 24 times before this happened. ... I never had gone up and down in the same spot. I never encountered or have seen anything. . . . The hole was opposite the left third of that lower step. ... I did not get down and examine the hole at the time I got hurt. I measured it by the amount of foot that went in the hole. ... I testified about four inches of my foot went in a hole approximately four to six inches, from this part to this; ... I did not measure it. I can approximate it by the amount of my foot that went in the hole and I can tell you that it went all the way from the tip here, which would make a whole shoe, went in. I ' do know approximately how wide it was, because my entire shoe went in the hole part, my foot went in the hole, ... It might have been deeper than four to six inches deep. It was as wide as my foot. Whether it was any wider than that I don’t know.”
Upon a motion to nonsuit, evidence should be taken in its natural and ordinary sense. It is certainly true that plaintiff’s case may not rest on mere conjecture. By the same token the court should not *376indulge in speculation in behalf of defendants. The evidence does not describe a freshly dug hole. It describes a hole larger than a woman’s foot and 4 to 6 inches deep, overgrown and obscured by grass 8 to 12 inches tall. Grass does not grow in or around such a hole so as to obscure it in a brief period of time. The inference is inescapable that the hole had existed for a considerable period of time and defendants or their servants, who mowed and trimmed the grass, in ■the exercise of ordinary care could and should have discovered it.
The defendants had the duty to discover the hidden danger and warn their patients and other invitees of its presence and peril. It is negligence to fail to know what it is one’s duty to know.
I vote to reverse.
Rodman, J., joins in dissenting opinion.