Court Opinion

ID: 9809643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:19:29.136743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:18.082853
License: Public Domain

Connor, J.
The defendant on its appeal to this Court contends that there was error in the judgment of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, and that for this error the said judgment should be reversed. On its appeal from the judgment of the County Court to the Superior *758Court of Forsyth. County, defendant assigned as error the refusal of the County Court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at the close of all the evidence, and in accordance with said motion to dismiss the action. This assignment of error was not sustained by the Superior Court. The judgment of the County Court was affirmed. The defendant excepted to the judgment of the Superior Court and appealed therefrom to this Court.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence offered at the trial in the Forsyth County Court, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is not sufficient to sustain plaintiff’s allegation that the injuries for which she seeks to recover damages by this action, were caused by the negligence of defendant, is thus presented to this Court. It is conceded that there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff’s fall on the stairway in the building occupied by defendant was caused, as she testified, by the catching of the heel of her shoe by the metal strip on the edge of a step in said stairway, and that her injuries were caused by this fall. It is admitted that upon the facts of this ease, defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages, which resulted from her injuries, if the said injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to maintain the steps of the stairway in a reasonably safe condition for use by patrons and customers of the “Beauty Parlor,” located on the second floor of the building occupied by the defendant, .under a lease from the owner. The question to be decided, therefore, is whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the stairway with steps constructed as all the evidence tends to show the steps in the stairway were constructed by the owner of the building. The negligence alleged in the complaint is the maintenance by defendant of the stairway for use by the public, with steps which were negligently constructed, in that metal strips, two inches wide, are laid upon the steps, with the result that the surface of the said strips is higher than the surface of the remainder of the steps. All the evidence tends to show that the surface of the metal strips is one-sixteenth of an inch higher than the surface of the remainder of the steps.
With respect to the construction of the steps in the stairway, it should be noted that the tread of each step is nine inches, including the metal strip, thus leaving the distance from the edge of the step to the back of the step, or to the rise of the next step above, seven inches; also, that hand-rails were placed on each side of the stairway, which does not exceed four feet in width. The stairway is inside the building, and was constructed for use only by persons who have occasion to go from the first to the second floor, and from the second to the first floor of the building. Plaintiff contends that the construction of the steps in the stairway is negligent. She alleges that defendant was negligent in maintaining the *759•stairway witb. tbe negligently constructed steps for use by patrons and customers of tbe “Beauty Parlor,” in that defendant by tbe exercise of reasonable care could have foreseen that tbe edge of tbe metal strip on each of tbe steps, being higher than tbe remainder of tbe step, would probably catch tbe heel’of tbe shoe of a person descending tbe stairway from tbe second floor, and cause such person .to fall and be injured.
Plaintiff bad been employed by defendant for five months prior to the day on which she was injured. During this time she worked only on the first floor. She bad no duties by reason of her employment by defendant which required her to go up the stairway to the second floor of the building. She bad, however, gone up to the “Beauty Parlor” twice during this time using the stairway for that purpose. She testified that she knew that others bad fallen on the stairway. She did not testify, however, that any person other than herself bad ever fallen on the stairway because the heel of the shoe of such person bad been caught by the metal strip on any of the steps in the stairway, nor did she testify that defendant knew that any person bad fallen on said stairway prior to the date on which she fell. There was no evidence tending to show that any person other than the plaintiff, while ascending the stairway, bad fallen because bis or her heel bad been caught by one of the metal strips.
Tbe liability of the owner or occupant of a building used as a store for the sale of merchandise to a customer or other invitee for damages resulting from injuries sustained while such customer or other invitee was in the building, and caused by some condition therein, is founded upon the principles on which the law of negligence is predicated. Leavister v. Piano Co., 185 N. C., 152, 116 S. E., 405. Tbe owner or occupant of the building is not an insurer of the safety of bis customer or other invitee, while in the building. Mullen v. Sensenbrenner (Mo.), 260 S. E., 982, 33 A. L. R., 176. He is liable only when the injuries resulting in damages were caused by bis failure to exercise reasonable care to provide for the safety of bis customers or other invitees. These principles apply in the instant case, and in accordance therewith we are of opinion that the evidence offered at the trial in the Forsyth County Court fails to show that defendant was negligent in maintaining the stairway with steps constructed by the owner of the building, on which metal strips were placed so' that the surface of the strip on each step was one-sixteenth of an inch higher than the surface of the step between the edge of the metal strip and the back of the step. Plaintiff’s fall while descending the stairway, caused by catching the heel of her shoe on the metal strip was not caused by the negligence of defendant. Tbe fall was an accident, for which defendant is not liable. Pendergrast v. Traction Co., 163 N. C., 553, 79 S. E., 984; Chapman v. Clothier, 274 Pa., 394, 118 Atl., 356.
*760The judgment of the Superior Court of Forsyth County is reversed. The action is remanded to said court with direction that judgment be entered in accordance with the decision of this Court.
Reversed.