Dowless v. Kroger Co.
148 N.C. App. 168, 557 S.E.2d 607, 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 1280 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant that leases only a building, and not the adjacent common areas like a parking lot, from an owner who is contractually obligated to maintain those common areas, does not owe a legal duty of care to a patron for injuries sustained in the parking lot due to its condition. However, for premises liability, an owner's duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and warn of hidden dangers is not negated, nor is a plaintiff necessarily contributorily negligent, if there are distracting circumstances that prevent an ordinarily prudent person from discovering an otherwise 'obvious' hazard.
Facts:
- Nancy Dowless sustained a shoulder injury in a parking lot outside a Kroger supermarket in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
- Her injury occurred when the left front wheel of her shopping cart fell into a hole in the asphalt of the parking lot, causing the cart to tip.
- Dowless attempted to catch the tipping shopping cart and, in doing so, tore the rotator cuff in her left shoulder.
- Ohio Wesleyan University owns both the Kroger supermarket building and the surrounding parking lot.
- Kroger Company leases only the building from Ohio Wesleyan University, not the parking lot.
- The lease contract stipulates that Ohio Wesleyan University is responsible for maintaining the 'Common Area, in good repair' and for maintaining 'the structure and exterior of the premises, including... all paved areas.'
- Dowless had shopped at this particular Kroger many times a week for approximately twenty years, and on the day of the incident, it was sunny and clear.
- Dowless stated in her affidavit that her view of the ground was obscured by merchandise in her shopping cart, and her attention was focused on heavy traffic in the parking lot as she crossed through an intersection of traffic lanes to reach her car, which was parked in an unfamiliar area.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Dowless and Purlie Dowless (plaintiffs) filed suit against Ohio Wesleyan University and Kroger Company (defendants) seeking damages based upon claims of negligence and loss of consortium.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Ohio Wesleyan University and Kroger Company.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (appellate court of first instance).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a tenant owe a duty of care to a patron for injuries sustained in an adjacent parking lot that the tenant does not lease or contractually maintain? 2. Can an owner of a parking lot be granted summary judgment on the grounds that a hazard was 'obvious' as a matter of law, when the plaintiff presents evidence of distracting circumstances that might have prevented an ordinarily prudent person from discovering the hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, Judge
No, Kroger Company did not owe a duty of care to Nancy Dowless for injuries sustained in the parking lot because it did not lease or contractually maintain that area. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to Kroger, reasoning that a defendant in a negligence case must be shown to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was undisputed that Kroger leased only the building from Ohio Wesleyan, which, as the owner, was contractually responsible for maintaining the parking lot's paved areas. Therefore, Kroger had no duty to maintain the parking lot in a safe condition, and an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim against Kroger was absent, as supported by precedent like Hedrick v. Akers. No, an owner of a parking lot cannot be granted summary judgment on the grounds that a hazard was 'obvious' as a matter of law, when the plaintiff presents evidence of distracting circumstances. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Ohio Wesleyan, holding that Ohio Wesleyan, as the parking lot owner, owed a duty to all lawful visitors to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and warn of hidden dangers, per Branks v. Kern. While there is no duty to warn of hazards obvious to an ordinarily intelligent person using their eyes, or of which the plaintiff had superior knowledge, the determination of 'obviousness' must consider the 'totality of the facts' and specific factors. These factors include the nature of the defect, lighting, and any reasonably foreseeable conditions that might distract attention, as established in Pulley v. Rex Hospital and Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co. Dowless's affidavit detailing her obscured view from the shopping cart and her attention being diverted by heavy traffic created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hole was 'obvious' under the circumstances, thus precluding summary judgment for Ohio Wesleyan.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of premises liability, particularly concerning leased properties with common areas. It firmly establishes that a tenant's duty of care typically does not extend beyond the areas they lease and control, even if those areas abut a hazard-prone common space managed by the landlord. Crucially, the ruling on Ohio Wesleyan sets a high bar for summary judgment based on an 'obvious hazard' defense, emphasizing a fact-intensive inquiry into the totality of circumstances, including potential distractions. This means plaintiffs in premises liability cases can more readily overcome summary judgment if they can demonstrate that, despite the physical visibility of a hazard, other factors rendered it 'less than obvious' to an ordinarily prudent person. The decision encourages property owners to consider potential distractions in their safety assessments and warnings.
