From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 2001
552 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2001)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In James v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 354 N.C. 210, 552 S.E.2d 140 (2001), the North Carolina Supreme Court set forth the standard for a jury instruction in a negligence claim against a premises owner by adopting the dissent in this Court's opinion, which stated that the defendant owner owes the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and a duty to warn of any hidden or concealed dangerous condition about which the owner knows or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known.

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Merchandise Mart Properties
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

No. 112A01

Filed 5 October 2001

No Headnotes.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 141 N.C. App. 721, 543 S.E.2d 158 (2001), finding error in a judgment entered 16 June 1999 by Cobb, J., in Superior Court, Pender County, and ordering a new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2001.

Sherman, Smith and Slaughter, P.L.L.C., by L. Bryan Smith, for plaintiff-appellee.

Poyner Spruill L.L.P., by Timothy W. Wilson, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.

Justice EDMUNDS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Summaries of

James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 2001
552 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2001)

In James v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 354 N.C. 210, 552 S.E.2d 140 (2001), the North Carolina Supreme Court set forth the standard for a jury instruction in a negligence claim against a premises owner by adopting the dissent in this Court's opinion, which stated that the defendant owner owes the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and a duty to warn of any hidden or concealed dangerous condition about which the owner knows or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known.

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Merchandise Mart Properties

In James, by reversing the Court of Appeals ruling, the Supreme Court of North Carolina in effect reaffirmed the holding in Byrd v. Arrowood, 118 N.C. App. 418, 421-22, 455 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1995) that, due to rainy conditions, the plaintiff should have been aware of the open and obvious danger that people would track water into the premises; and, therefore, the defendant was not liable on a theory of negligence due to failure to warn.

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Merchandise Mart Properties

In James, due to the rain, the defendant had placed a yellow caution sign and a floor mat in the vestibule and another floor mat inside the entrance to the store.

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Merchandise Mart Properties
Case details for

James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARY EVELYN JAMES v. WAL-MART STORES, INC

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 2001

Citations

552 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2001)
552 S.E.2d 140

Citing Cases

Bennett v. Merchandise Mart Properties

We still had the "Wet Floor" signs up. In James v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 354 N.C. 210, 552 S.E.2d…

1 Citing Cases