Duval v. OM HOSPITALITY, LLC
186 N.C. App. 390, 651 S.E.2d 261, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 2190 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment on the issue of contributory negligence is rarely appropriate and should not be granted unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes the plaintiff's negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference can be drawn.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and her husband were guests at a Days Inn motel.
- On October 26, 2002, around 6:30 a.m., plaintiff and her husband attempted to exit their motel room.
- Plaintiff alleged it was necessary to walk down an unlit, dark stairwell to exit the motel because a light timer controlling the stairwell light had been deactivated.
- Plaintiff testified the stairwell was "pitch dark" and she could not see the steps.
- As they descended, both plaintiff and her husband held the stair rail, and her husband used a walking stick ahead of him to feel for the next step.
- Plaintiff, believing she had reached the ground floor, stepped forward and fell face-down on concrete, sustaining injuries to her nose, forehead, right arm, and left leg.
- Plaintiff admitted she knew the stairway had no lights and there was a possibility she could fall, but she believed there was no other way out.
- Plaintiff alleged that OM Hospitality, LLC (OMH) was aware of the lack of lighting in the stairwell and failed to correct the condition or warn users.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 25, 2005, against OM Hospitality, LLC (OMH) and Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., alleging personal injury based upon OMH's negligence.
- On January 19, 2006, plaintiff and Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. entered into a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, removing Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. as a party to the action.
- Defendant OMH filed a motion for summary judgment on June 8, 2006.
- On June 27, 2006, the trial court (court of first instance) denied OMH's motion for summary judgment regarding its actionable negligence but granted OMH's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment based upon contributory negligence to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- Defendant OMH cross-appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment as to OMH's negligence to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a motel guest's awareness of an unlit stairwell and the potential danger, despite taking precautions to descend it, establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment against their personal injury claim?
Opinions:
Majority - STROUD, Judge
No, a plaintiff's awareness of an unlit stairwell and the potential danger, despite taking precautions to descend it, does not automatically establish contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on contributory negligence, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff's actions. Summary judgment in negligence and contributory negligence cases is rarely appropriate and should only be granted if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference can be drawn. The determination of contributory negligence relies on an objective standard of care—what an ordinarily prudent person would do under similar circumstances—rather than a plaintiff's subjective appreciation of danger. Citing Rappaport v. Days Inn, the court reiterated that merely attempting to proceed in darkness does not, as a matter of law, constitute contributory negligence if a jury could reasonably find the plaintiff acted prudently, especially when no other exit was known. Here, a jury could reasonably conclude that the plaintiff acted reasonably by carefully descending the stairs, holding the railing, and using her husband's assistance, given her belief that no alternative route was available. The court also addressed the interlocutory nature of the appeal, concluding that the voluntary dismissal of a co-defendant and the grant of summary judgment on contributory negligence, which effectively bars recovery, rendered the order immediately appealable. It affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment on defendant's negligence, noting that genuine issues of material fact clearly existed.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high threshold for granting summary judgment on issues of contributory negligence in premises liability actions, emphasizing the primary role of the jury in resolving factual disputes concerning a plaintiff's reasonableness. It clarifies that a plaintiff's mere knowledge of a dangerous condition does not automatically establish negligence as a matter of law, especially when the plaintiff takes precautions or perceives no safer alternative. The ruling protects plaintiffs from premature dismissal when the question of their conduct's reasonableness remains a matter on which reasonable minds could differ, thereby ensuring that complex factual scenarios are properly submitted to a jury.
