Cobb Ex Rel. Knight v. Town of Blowing Rock, 213 N.C. App. 88

Chelsea Cobb, a twelve-year-old lawful visitor, was injured by a natural condition (Glen Burney Falls/New Years Creek) on Town of Blowing Rock property.
Plaintiffs alleged the landowner failed to maintain safe premises and to warn of hidden dangers, with no warnings at the overlook or trail.
Prior incidents occurred nearby: two adults were injured in the same location twelve days before Cobb's fall, highlighting known risk.
The property had designated trails and an observation deck; a cable across the creek had deteriorated and a wooden board barrier had been removed.
Jury instructions were challenged for not addressing age-related considerations in negligence; a motion for new trial followed the verdict.
The trial court complied with pattern jury instructions; plaintiffs requested age-conscious and “reasonably foreseeable characteristics” additions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of care to minor lawful visitor	Cobb argued for an instruction reflecting a higher or age-adjusted standard.	Nelson/modern standard applies: reasonable care for all lawful visitors; no higher standard for minors.	Instruction adopting higher standard rejected; jury must consider reasonable care for all lawful visitors.
Age-of-visitor impact on negligence instruction	Age should affect duties and warnings for a child plaintiff.	Age should not alter landowner’s duty; standard is the same for all lawful visitors.	No separate age-based standard required; standard is uniform for lawful visitors; Hedrick distinctions rejected.
Jury question on age and duty of care	The court failed to instruct how Cobb’s age should influence duty of care when answering jury’s question.	Court correctly instructed; age connotes contributory negligence concepts, not duty modification.	Failure to tailor age-duties instruction error; new trial warranted.
Motion for new trial	Erroneous instructions warranted a new trial under Rule 59.	Errors were not reversible; jury instructions were correct.	New trial granted due to instructional error affecting outcome.

Liborio v. King, 150 N.C.App. 531 (2002) (test for error in omitted correct jury instruction)
Maglione v. Aegis Family Health Ctrs., 168 N.C.App. 49 (2005) (correct instruction required when supported by evidence)
Faeber v. E.C.T. Corp., 16 N.C.App. 429 (1972) (instruction sufficiency standard)
Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615 (1998) (abolished licensee/invitee distinction; duty to lawful visitors = reasonable care)
Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C.App. 158 (1999) (same standard for all lawful visitors; prior invitee/licensee distinctions removed)
Hedrick v. Tigniere, 267 N.C. 62 (1966) (age can influence warnings/contributory negligence; context-specific)
Pulley v. Rex Hospital, 326 N.C. 701 (1990) (fact-significance of total circumstances for reasonableness)
Waltz v. Wake County Bd. of Educ., 104 N.C.App. 302 (1991) (minor-invitee; natural condition; school setting; recoveries on natural conditions)
Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc., 234 N.C. 632 (1951) (attractive nuisance—natural dangers to children; artificial vs natural distinction)
Leonard v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 131 N.C.App. 304 (1998) (natural, obvious dangers; attractive nuisance doctrine limits liability)
Welch v. Jenkins, 271 N.C. 138 (1967) (contributory negligence presumption for children)