Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp.

36 Citing cases

  1. Cobb v. Town of Blowing Rock

    213 N.C. App. 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that "Nelson thus abolished the distinction between ‘licensees’ and ‘invitees’ and applied the same standard to all lawful visitors" and that, "[i]n other words, the present standard for all lawful visitors is the same as it was prior to Nelson for invitees" (citing Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp. , 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999) )

    Formerly, "the standard of care a real property owner or occupier owed to an entrant depended on whether the entrant was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser." Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1999). Landowners owed invitees "a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a safe condition and to warn of hidden dangers that had been or could have been discovered by reasonable inspection."

  2. Overton v. Evans Logging, Inc.

    737 S.E.2d 416 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    However, “[w]hen a reasonable occupier of land should anticipate that a dangerous condition will likely cause physical harm to [a visitor], notwithstanding its known and obvious danger, the occupier of the land is not absolved from liability.” Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C.App. 158, 162, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999); see also Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc., 142 N.C.App. 216, 223, 542 S.E.2d 303, 308 (2001) (“If a reasonable person would anticipate an unreasonable risk of harm to a visitor on his property, notwithstanding the lawful visitor's knowledge of the danger or the obvious nature of the danger, the landowner has a duty to take precautions to protect the lawful visitor.”), aff'd,355 N.C. 465, 562 S.E.2d 887 (2002).

  3. Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League

    No. COA07-647 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Holding the trial court erred in granting a defendant's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's premises liability claim and noting that "[i]t is rare that a negligence claim should be dismissed upon the pleadings"

    As a general proposition, there is no duty to protect a lawful visitor against dangers which are either known to him or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered. Wrenn v. Convalescent Home, 270 N.C. 447, 448, 154 S.E.2d 483, 484 (1967); see 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 147 (1990) (owner liable only if condition known or should have been known by him and not known or should not have been known by the injured visitor).Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 162, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999). The footnote in Lorinovich points out that "[a]lthough this `no duty' rule for obvious dangers `bears a strong resemblance to the doctrine of contributory negligence,' 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 149 (1990), it in fact negates the defendant's duty of care and eliminates any occasion for reliance on the defense of contributory negligence."

  4. Robbins v. Polk Cty

    170 N.C. App. 436 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)

    Accordingly, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's action against all defendants with prejudice. From this order entered 25 February 2004, plaintiff appeals. A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of his property in order to protect lawful visitors against injury. Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646, cert. denied, 351 N.C. 107, 541 S.E.2d 148 (1999). However, "[a]n owner or occupier of land ordinarily has no duty to warn of an obvious condition of which its invitee has equal or superior knowledge."

  5. Freeman v. Food Lion, LLC

    173 N.C. App. 207 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    There is a presumption, however, that a reasonable person will be "vigilant in the avoidance of injury" when faced with a "known and obvious danger." Id. (quoting Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 66, 414 S.E.2d at 344); seeLorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C.App. 158, 162-63, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646-47 (1999)("As a general proposition, there is no duty to protect a lawful visitor against dangers which are either known to him or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered.") "Although this 'no duty' rule for obvious dangers bears a strong resemblance to the doctrine of contributory negligence, ... it in fact negates the defendant's duty of care and eliminates any occasion for reliance on the defense of contributory negligence."

  6. Hussey v. Seawell

    527 S.E.2d 90 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    Under Nelson, a landowner has a duty to any lawful visitor on his property "to take reasonable precautions to ascertain the condition of [his] property and to either make it reasonably safe or give warnings as may be reasonably necessary to inform of any foreseeable danger." Lorinovich v. K Mart Corporation, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646, cert. denied, 351 N.C. 107, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1999). Whether the actions of the landowner are reasonable are to be judged against the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.

  7. Kelly v. Regency Ctrs. Corp.

    203 N.C. App. 339 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 17 times

    North Carolina landowners, such as Regency Centers Corporation, are required to exercise reasonable care to provide for the safety of all lawful visitors on their property. Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999). Whether a landowner's care is reasonable is judged against the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.

  8. Rabil v. Food Lion

    189 N.C. App. 787 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)

    In North Carolina, a landowner is required to exercise reasonable care to provide for the safety of all lawful visitors on his property. Lorinovich v. KMart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999). Whether the care is reasonable is judged against the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.

  9. Swinson v. Lejeune Motor Co.

    147 N.C. App. 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that evidence established contributory negligence as a matter of law where the plaintiff claimed she fell while looking for her car in the parking lot but a large defect in the asphalt was in her unobstructed plain view and there were no cars in area

    "[A] landowner has a duty to any lawful visitor on his property `to take reasonable precautions to ascertain the condition of [his] property and to either make it reasonably safe or give warnings as may be reasonably necessary to inform . . . of any foreseeable danger.'" Hussey v. Seawell, 137 N.C. App. 172, 175, 527 S.E.2d 90, 92 (2000) (quoting Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 645, cert. denied, 351 N.C. 107, 541 S.E.2d 148 (1999)). Moreover, a store owner has a duty of "ordinary care to keep in a reasonably safe condition those portions of its premises which it may expect will be used by its customers during business hours, and to give warning of hidden perils or unsafe conditions insofar as they can be ascertained by reasonable inspection and supervision."

  10. James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    141 N.C. App. 721 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    A landowner is "required to exercise reasonable care to provide for the safety of all lawful visitors on [its] property," and thus must "take reasonable precautions to ascertain the condition of the property and to either make it reasonably safe or give warnings as may be reasonably necessary to inform the [lawful visitor] of any foreseeable danger." Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161-62, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646, cert. denied, 351 N.C. 107, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1999). Generally, "there is no duty to protect a lawful visitor against dangers which are either known to him or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered."