Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
279 S.E.2d 559, 303 N.C. 462, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1183 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A store customer is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to observe a hazardous condition on the floor when the proprietor has created displays intended to divert the customer's attention away from the floor. Under such circumstances, the question of negligence is a matter of fact for the jury to decide.

Facts:

On November 9, 1974, plaintiff entered defendant's store to purchase art supplies for her daughter.
As plaintiff walked toward the rear cash register, she proceeded down a crowded, two-and-a-half-foot-wide aisle where the floor along the sides was in shadow.
At the end of the aisle, defendant had placed a four-foot-square raised platform, or pallet, 'catty-cornered' so that one corner protruded three to six inches into the aisle.
The platform, which was only three to four inches high, held a tall paint sprayer display designed to attract customer attention at eye level.
Defendant also placed 'impulse items' near the cash register, which were designed to attract the attention of customers.
While looking toward the cashier, plaintiff saw the platform and display out of the corner of her eye but did not realize its corner protruded into the aisle.
Plaintiff's left foot caught on the corner of the platform, causing her to stumble and sustain a serious and permanent injury to her foot and leg, later diagnosed as sympathetic dystrophy.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed suit for personal injuries against defendant in the Superior Court of Durham County, North Carolina (trial court).
The case was tried before a jury, which found that defendant was negligent, plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and awarded plaintiff $90,000 in damages.
Following the verdict, defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
The trial court judge granted defendant's motion for JNOV, setting aside the jury's verdict, and denied the alternative motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the entry of the JNOV to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's JNOV, holding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Plaintiff (appellant) then gave notice of appeal of right to the Supreme Court of North Carolina (highest court).

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 store customer's failure to see a hazard on the floor constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law when the store has placed displays intended to draw the customer's attention away from the floor?

Opinions:

Majority - Carlton, Justice

No. A customer's failure to see a floor-level hazard does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law when the store owner intentionally creates a distraction. The fundamental issue is not whether a person could have seen the hazard had they looked, but whether a person exercising ordinary care for their own safety would have looked at the floor under the specific circumstances. A customer is entitled to assume a store's aisles are reasonably safe and is not required to anticipate the owner's negligence. When a merchant places displays intended to entice a customer's eyes away from the floor, the merchant cannot then claim the customer was negligent for being successfully distracted. The evidence of the protruding platform, poor lighting, and intentional distractions created a question of fact for the jury, making the judgment notwithstanding the verdict improper.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the 'distraction doctrine' within premises liability law, particularly in the context of contributory negligence. It curtails a proprietor's ability to have a trip-and-fall case dismissed by a judge by establishing that intentional merchandising distractions create a question of fact for the jury. The ruling shifts some of the burden of care, recognizing that modern retail environments are designed to pull a customer's focus away from their path of travel. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs in similar cases, requiring courts to consider the store's own role in creating the distracting condition that led to the injury.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature