Legal Opinion

Colclough v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 9, 1968No. 6814SC382PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

Defendant was not an insurer of plaintiff’s safety while she was on its premises. Smithson v. Grant Co., 269 N.C. 575, 153 S.E. 2d 68. Defendant did owe to the plaintiff, as it did to all of its invitee customers, the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises and the facilities which it furnished for their use in reasonably safe condition. Included in this duty was the obligation to exercise ordinary care in making such inspections as might be reasonably required to ascertain that the premises and facilities were being maintained in reasonably safe condition. Included also was the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lee v. H. L. Green & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Lanier v. Roses Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Smithson v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McPherson v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Manuel v. Wal-Mart StoresLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Gaston v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  4. Porter v. Mid-State Oil Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Bray Ex Rel. Ward v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API