Court Opinion

ID: 9811687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:20.773844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:07.913812
License: Public Domain

Barnhill, J.,
concurring in tbe result: Tbe complaint discloses that tbe condition about wbicb tbe plaintiff complains did not exist on property belonging to tbe defendant Sberrin. He Tyas not tbe lessor thereof. Consequently, Knight v. Foster, 163 N. C., 329, 79 S. E., 614; Wilson v. Dowtin, 215 N. C., 547, 2 S. E. (2d), 576, and other cases cited wbicb discuss tbe liability of a landlord who demises premises in a ruinous condition are not authoritative and have no bearing upon tbe question here presented. Nor is it alleged, either directly or indirectly, that tbe provisions of C. S., 4426, have been violated by tbe defendant.
In tbe argument here counsel admitted that tbe plaintiff is not relying on tbe attractive nuisance doctrine. Tbe allegations in tbe complaint would not sustain such contention. It follows that tbe discussions in tbe opinions in Boyd v. R. R., 207 N. C., 390, 177 S. E., 1; Starling v. Cotton Mills, 168 N. C., 229, 84 S. E., 388; and Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N. C., 398, 177 S. E., 114, do not tend to sustain tbe complaint nor justify tbe conclusion that a cause of action is therein set out.
It is alleged that tbe defendant Sberrin, together with tbe defendants Sappenfield, constructed and are maintaining tbe pit, wbicb is described in tbe complaint, on premises belonging to tbe defendants Sappenfield for tbe joint benefit of all tbe defendants; that this pit is concealed or bidden by weeds and other growth; that it is constructed within 2 feet of tbe unprotected property line of tbe property occupied by tbe deceased and other members of bis family; that there were six small children in tbe family of the deceased, who was five years of age; that tbe property is located in a thickly settled residential section; that small children are accustomed to play on tbe vacant premises on wbicb tbe pit is located; that tbe defendant knew or, in tbe exercise of ordinary care, should have known that such children were accustomed to play on tbe lot and that their safety and lives were menaced by tbe open pit or bole wbicb was bidden by weeds and other growth and around wbicb no fence or other protection was placed and of wbicb no warning was given.
In my opinion these allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. If tbe defendant Sherrin was in fact at tbe time participating in tbe maintenance of tbe pit or hole located on tbe premises of tbe defendants Sappenfield and tbe plaintiff offers evidence tending to support tbe other allegations, then it is for tbe jury to say whether, in tbe exercise of ordinary care, it was bis duty to provide protection by fence *542or other devices and to give warning of tbe danger incident to tbe existence of tbe pit. I concur in tbe view that tbe judgment below should be affirmed.
Stacy, C. J., ScheNCk and WiNbokNE, JJ., join in this opinion.