Court Opinion

ID: 9575110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:38.194172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:44.859132
License: Public Domain

Justice Frye
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong test for summary judgment, but I disagree that, on the facts of this case, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant. I therefore dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion which holds that the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court’s entry of summary judgment.
“Negligence claims,” wrote Justice (now Chief Justice) Exum for the Court, “are rarely susceptible of summary adjudication, and should ordinarily be resolved by trial of the issues.” Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 425, 302 S.E.2d 868, 871 (1983). “Hence, it is only in exceptional negligence cases that summary judgment is appropriate because the rule of the prudent [person] or other applicable standard of care, must be applied, and ordinarily the jury should apply it under appropriate instructions *70from the court.” Vassey v. Burch, 301 N.C. 68, 73, 269 S.E.2d 137, 140 (1980).
In order to succeed, the moving party — in this case the defendant — must meet an initial burden of (1) proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party (2) cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim or (3) cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim. Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 440-41, 293 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1982); accord Collingwood v. G.E. Real Estate Equities, 324 N.C. 63, 66, 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). “ ‘If the moving party fails in his showing, summary judgment is not proper regardless of whether the opponent responds.’ ” Bernick, 306 N.C. at 441, 293 S.E.2d at 409 (quoting City of Thomasville v. Lease-Afex Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 654, 268 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1980)). Furthermore, all inferences of fact at the summary judgment hearing “must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Collingwood, 324 N.C. at 66, 376 S.E.2d at 427.
Thus, in this case, plaintiff did not need to respond with a more detailed forecast of her evidence until defendant met its initial burden. The majority holds that defendant met this initial burden by demonstrating through discovery that plaintiff could not produce evidence of actual or constructive notice on the part of defendant. I disagree.
As the majority states, in order to prevail at trial, plaintiff must show that the dangerous condition “ ‘existed for such a length of time that defendant knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of its existence, in time to have removed the danger or [to have] given proper warning of its presence.’ ” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 64, 414 S.E.2d 339, 343 (1992) (quoting Powell v. Deifells, Inc., 251 N.C. 596, 600, 112 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1960)). This duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition “implies the duty to make reasonable inspection and to correct unsafe conditions which a reasonable inspection would reveal . . . .” Rappaport v. Days Inn, 296 N.C. 382, 387, 250 S.E.2d 245, 249 (1979).
In her deposition, plaintiff states that she and her family arrived at the Bojangles restaurant about 7:30 p.m. on 21 December 1987 and left between 8 and 8:15 p.m. Upon leaving the restaurant, plaintiff states that she slipped on a thick, mucky, greasy black *71substance which measured two and one-half to three feet in circular dimension. She estimated that the substance was as much as a sixteenth of an inch in thickness. The parking space where she fell, according to photographs, is located near the entrance to the restaurant. Plaintiff also states in her deposition that when she returned to the restaurant two and one-half to three weeks later, “the parking space where I fell had more of a grease build up than the other areas.” Defendant’s attorney then asked plaintiff: “Did it [parking space] look exactly the same as it had on December 21, 1987 when this happened? Was the spot that you described there”? Plaintiff responded, “Uh huh. Yes.”
Based on plaintiff’s deposition, seven photographs, and three sets of interrogatories answered by plaintiff, the majority concludes that defendant met its burden of proving that plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support her claim. Defendant offered no affirmative evidence on the issue of notice, such as depositions by its own employees that they had inspected the parking area prior to plaintiff’s spill and found no grease spot. Cf. Warren v. Rosso and Mastracco, Inc., 78 N.C. App. 163, 336 S.E.2d 699 (1985) (defendant produced affidavits of two employees, each stating that the excrement which caused the plaintiff to slip was deposited on the floor immediately prior to the plaintiff’s fall).
Considering the facts before the trial court in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I believe a reasonable inference can be drawn that this large, mucky, greasy spot did not suddenly appear in the thirty to forty-five minutes that plaintiff was inside the restaurant. Photographs taken by the plaintiff approximately two months after her fall, and submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, show spots of oil or grease in the parking space where plaintiff slipped. Given the size of the grease spot, its thickness, plaintiff’s photographs and plaintiff’s deposition statement that the grease spot was intact more than two weeks after her fall, a jury could reasonably infer that this particular parking spot, for whatever reason, had a coat of grease for some period of time prior to plaintiff’s fall. Furthermore, given that the parking space is near the entrance of the restaurant, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant should have been aware of the dangerous condition and taken steps to correct it.
The majority also suggests that summary judgment was appropriate in this case because oil or grease in a parking lot is *72an obvious danger, and a “proprietor has no duty to warn an invitee of an obvious danger or of a condition of which the invitee has equal or superior knowledge.” Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 66, 414 S.E.2d at 344 (citing Harris v. Department Stores Co., 247 N.C. 195, 100 S.E.2d 323 (1957)). The majority relies on Goard v. Branscom, 15 N.C. App. 34, 189 S.E.2d 667, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 756, 191 S.E.2d 354 (1972), in which the Court of Appeals states that it is common knowledge that oil and grease leak from automobiles. Id. at 39-40, 189 S.E.2d at 670. The majority fails to mention, however, that the issue in Goard was not whether oil in parking lots is a common danger; instead, the issue was whether the plaintiff was an invitee or licensee on the church premises where she fell. Id. at 36, 189 S.E.2d at 668. The court held that plaintiff was neither an invitee nor a licensee, but rather “one of the persons in possession of the premises involved . . . .” Id. at 40, 189 S.E.2d at 670. Defendant, therefore, did not owe the plaintiff in Goard the same duty that defendant in this case owed plaintiff, an invitee of the restaurant.
Although it is well known that cars occasionally leak grease and oil, the question in this case is whether a large black oil or grease spill on an asphalt surface near the restaurant entrance should be so obvious to a restaurant patron at night that the restaurant has no duty either to warn or remove the danger. That question, I believe, is one better left to a jury, not a trial judge or appellate court.
For the reasons outlined above, I vote to modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice EXUM and Justice LAKE join in this dissenting opinion.