Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn
Filed 5 June 2020 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has no duty to warn a visitor about an open and obvious condition on their property, and a plaintiff is barred from recovery if their own negligence contributed to their injury, especially when an obvious risk should have been heeded.
Facts:
- Milton Draughon Sr. visited Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn for a funeral.
- Employees of Dafford Funeral Home, Inc. asked Draughon to help carry the casket.
- Draughon agreed and was led through the church building and then outside, descending a small set of stairs.
- Draughon and three other men carried the casket from a hearse into the church building, using the same set of stairs he had just descended.
- The set of stairs had five steps; the bottom four were gray concrete, rising about 6.5 inches each.
- The fifth (top) step was made of both red brick and gray concrete, initially rising about 9.5 inches, with a white, wooden platform adding just over an inch, resulting in a total rise about 4 inches (61%) greater than the other steps, with visibly distinct materials.
- As Draughon carried the casket up the stairs, he walked sideways and watched the doorway instead of where he was stepping.
- Draughon tripped near the top of the steps, fell into the church building, and was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Milton Draughon Sr. filed a complaint against Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn in state trial court, alleging negligence.
- Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn filed an answer, alleging contributory negligence, and a third-party complaint against Dafford Funeral Home, Inc. for contribution and indemnification.
- The parties conducted discovery, including Draughon's deposition.
- Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn moved for summary judgment, arguing any dangerous condition was open and obvious and Draughon was contributorily negligent.
- The Superior Court, Harnett County, Judge Beecher R. Gray, granted summary judgment in favor of Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn on 4 June 2018.
- Draughon appealed the summary judgment order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Draughon as appellant, Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn as appellee).
- A divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the summary judgment order, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the condition and contributory negligence.
- Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissenting opinion (Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn as appellant, Draughon as appellee).
- Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn also filed a petition for discretionary review as to additional issues, which the Supreme Court allowed on 25 September 2019.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment appropriate for a landowner in a premises liability case when a visitor trips on a step that is visibly higher and made of noticeably different materials than other steps, after the visitor previously descended the stairs and then ascended them without looking where he was stepping?
Opinions:
Majority - Newby, Justice
Yes, summary judgment for the landowner is appropriate. The alleged defect—the top step being significantly higher and made of visibly different materials—was an open and obvious condition that would have been detected by "any ordinarily intelligent person using his eyes in an ordinary manner." Therefore, Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn had no duty to warn Draughon. Furthermore, Draughon was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he failed to take reasonable care for his own safety; he had just descended the stairs, giving him prior knowledge of the condition, and he admitted to walking sideways and looking at the doorway instead of the steps as he ascended with the casket. The court distinguishes Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc. by noting the greater height difference (four inches versus one-to-two inches) and the visually distinct materials of the top step in this case, making the condition here objectively obvious despite any claimed 'lulling effect'.
Dissenting - Earls, Justice
No, summary judgment is not appropriate, as issues of negligence and contributory negligence are rarely decided as a matter of law and typically belong to a jury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Draughon, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the condition of the steps was open and obvious and whether Draughon was contributorily negligent. Draughon's affidavit stated the defect was "not open and obvious" and his engineering expert averred that building codes require uniform risers, the steps were "unreasonably unsafe," and the uniformity of the lower steps could create a "lulling effect" leading users to expect the same height for the top step. This raises a question for the jury on the objective obviousness of the condition. Furthermore, Draughon testified he was unaware of any danger after descending the steps, making his credibility and the reasonableness of his perception a jury question. The ambiguity in Draughon's deposition regarding the precise point of his trip, coupled with his clear testimony that he "tripped on the top step," precludes a finding of contributory negligence as a matter of law regarding the cause of the fall.
Analysis:
This case reinforces North Carolina's strict application of the 'open and obvious' doctrine in premises liability, emphasizing that property owners generally have no duty to warn of patent dangers. It also underscores the high bar for plaintiffs to overcome a contributory negligence defense, particularly when they have had prior exposure to the alleged hazard and fail to exercise reasonable care. The decision clarifies that significant visual distinctions in a condition, coupled with a plaintiff's inattentiveness, can lead to summary judgment for the defendant, even against arguments of a 'lulling effect' or subjective unawareness. This ruling may make it more challenging for plaintiffs to succeed in premises liability claims involving clearly visible architectural differences.
