Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.
Few, if .any, questions of law are presented to this Court with more frequency than the sufficiency .of evidence in a civil ease to survive a motion for nonsuit. Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747; Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E. 2d 154; McFalls v. Smith, 249 N.C. 123, 105 S.E. 2d 297; Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E. 2d 451.
The evidence in this case establishes the fact that plaintiff wás an invitee upon the premises under the control ■ of the defendant)' Ordinarily, a proprietor of a store or business establishment is'npijah insurer -of the safety of his invitees. He owes…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Bohannon Ex Rel. Bohannon v. Leonard-Fitzpatrick-Mueller Stores Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Coston v. Skyland Hotel, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Ross v. Sterling Drug StoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Wall v. TrogdonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Spell v. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Whitaker v. BlackburnCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Bowman v. BowmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985