Smithson v. WT Grant Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Per curiam
The defendant is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter its store for the purpose of making purchases, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Fox v. Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115, 182 S.E. 662. Plaintiff was an invitee to whom defendant owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. No inference of actionable negligence on the part of defendant arose from the mere fact that plaintiff fell on its premises as a result of slipping on an object in the aisle of defendant’s store. Graves v. Order of Elks, 268 N.C. 356, 150 S.E. 2d 522.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Graves v. Charlotte Lodge No. 392 Benevolent & Protective Order of ElksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
3Cited by4 opinions
- Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint VentureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Colclough v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- Barnes v. Wilson Hardware Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint VentureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981