Legal Opinion

Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 6, 1959No. 522PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Bohannon Ex Rel. Bohannon v. Leonard-Fitzpatrick-Mueller Stores Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Coston v. Skyland Hotel, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Ross v. Sterling Drug StoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Wall v. TrogdonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Spell v. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Whitaker v. BlackburnCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Bowman v. BowmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API