Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc.
395 S.E.2d 112, 327 N.C. 412, 1990 N.C. LEXIS 712 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A building owner's violation of the State Building Code does not establish negligence per se without a showing that the owner knew or should have known of the violation; however, sufficient evidence of a dangerous condition can support a common law negligence claim and preclude summary judgment, leaving questions of proximate cause and contributory negligence for a jury.
Facts:
- On February 3, 1987, 69-year-old Ms. Lamm visited an office building owned by Daniel and Judy Wetherington and managed by Bissette Realty, Inc. to pay an insurance bill.
- The building, constructed in 1978, has brick steps that serve as the only exit and lead to an asphalt parking lot via an asphalt ramp.
- The steps consist of three risers; the top two steps are six and a half inches high, but the bottom riser is seven and a half inches high at its contact point with the asphalt.
- An asphalt ramp slopes upward from the parking lot toward the bottom step at one inch per running foot, making the effective height of the last step eight and a half inches for someone stepping about one foot out.
- The steps do not have a handrail on either side.
- As Ms. Lamm was leaving the building, she fell while stepping off the bottom step onto the sloping asphalt, stating later that "the step was deeper than I thought it was" and her foot slipped.
Procedural Posture:
- Ms. Lamm brought suit against Daniel and Judy Wetherington and Bissette Realty, Inc. in trial court for injuries sustained from slipping and falling.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Ms. Lamm appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding that defendants violated the North Carolina State Building Code, thus constituting negligence per se, and that proximate cause and contributory negligence were jury questions.
- Defendants appealed from the Court of Appeals' decision based on a dissent and filed a petition for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court, which was allowed on September 6, 1989.
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 building owner's violation of the State Building Code automatically establish negligence per se, or can common law negligence still be argued based on dangerous premises conditions, thereby precluding summary judgment and reserving questions of proximate cause and contributory negligence for a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, Justice
No, a building owner's violation of the State Building Code does not automatically establish negligence per se without a showing of knowledge or constructive knowledge of the violation, but sufficient evidence of common law negligence can still allow a case to proceed, reserving proximate cause and contributory negligence for a jury. The Court of Appeals erred in finding negligence per se because Ms. Lamm did not demonstrate that the Wetheringtons or Bissette Realty knew or should have known of the Building Code violations regarding handrails or uniform riser heights. However, as business invitees, Ms. Lamm was owed a duty by the defendants to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden dangers. The combination of the sloping asphalt and the varied riser height (making the last step two inches deeper than the others) could be considered a hidden defect, not "open and obvious" as a matter of law, thereby creating a duty to warn. Furthermore, a jury could find common law negligence for failing to provide a handrail, especially given the downward slope of the asphalt ramp and the uneven steps. Therefore, Ms. Lamm presented a prima facie case of common law negligence sufficient to survive summary judgment. The questions of proximate cause and contributory negligence are inherently factual and thus properly reserved for the jury, not to be decided as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it clarifies the application of negligence per se in North Carolina, establishing that a mere violation of a building code is insufficient without demonstrating the owner's knowledge or constructive knowledge of that violation. It also reinforces that even in the absence of per se negligence, common law negligence claims can proceed if there is a question of fact regarding the owner's duty to maintain safe premises or warn of hidden dangers. The decision underscores the judiciary's deference to jury determination for factual issues such as proximate cause and contributory negligence, particularly in premises liability cases involving nuanced conditions like varied step heights.
