Jacobs v. Hill's Food Stores, Inc.
1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 210, 364 S.E.2d 692, 88 N.C. App. 730 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A storekeeper is not an insurer of its customers' safety and owes no duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers on its premises of which the invitee has equal or superior knowledge.
Facts:
- Plaintiff entered the defendant's place of business to purchase groceries.
- Plaintiff had traveled the same route where the walkway, containing a concrete block, was located for a period of ten years.
- The parking lot and store premises were adequately lit.
- A concrete block was situated on the walkway where the plaintiff was walking.
- Plaintiff never saw the concrete block before she tripped.
- There was nothing to prevent plaintiff from seeing the concrete block at any time.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated a negligence action against the defendant store owner.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order allowing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment 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 storekeeper breach its duty of ordinary care to a business invitee by failing to warn of an obvious condition on its walkway when the invitee has superior knowledge of the condition and an unobstructed view?
Opinions:
Majority - JOHNSON, Judge
No, a storekeeper does not breach its duty of ordinary care to a business invitee by failing to warn of an obvious condition on its walkway when the invitee has superior knowledge of the condition and an unobstructed view. The court stated that a storekeeper owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden dangers, but is not an insurer of safety. A storekeeper is under no duty to warn invitees of obvious dangers of which they have equal or superior knowledge. In this case, plaintiff’s own testimony established that the concrete block was an obvious condition, as she had traveled the route for ten years, the area was adequately lit, and nothing obstructed her view. Therefore, plaintiff either knew or should have known of the concrete block's location. This evidence demonstrates that the defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff's testimony indicated her own negligence in failing to watch where she was walking.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limitations of premises liability in negligence claims, particularly regarding the 'obvious danger' doctrine. It clarifies that a store owner's duty to its invitees does not extend to warning about conditions that are readily apparent or of which the invitee has prior knowledge. The decision also illustrates the importance of a plaintiff's own contributory negligence, indicating that an invitee's failure to observe obvious conditions can preclude recovery. This precedent is crucial for defendants seeking summary judgment in premises liability cases where the alleged danger was patent, shifting responsibility back to the plaintiff for exercising reasonable care for their own safety.
