374 N.C. 479
N.C.2020Background
- Plaintiff Draughon agreed to help carry a casket into Evening Star Holiness Church; he descended the same exterior five-step stairway moments earlier, then ascended it carrying the casket while walking sideways and looking at the doorway.
- The top (fifth) riser/tread is visibly different (red brick + recessed white wood) and about 9.5–10.5" high vs. ~6.5–7" for the other risers — roughly a 4" (≈61%) increase in rise.
- Plaintiff tripped at the top steps, fell into the church, and sued for negligent maintenance/failure to warn; he produced an engineering expert who opined the top step violated uniform-riser norms and was defective.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the church (no duty to warn; contributory negligence). A divided Court of Appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review and took the case on additional issues.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court (majority) reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the top step was an open-and-obvious condition and that Draughon was contributorily negligent; a three-justice dissent would have left those issues to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn — was the top step an open and obvious condition? | Draughon: the uniformity of the lower risers lulled users into expecting sameness; the height differential was not obvious and therefore a hidden defect requiring a warning. | Church: the top step was plainly visible (different material/color and markedly higher); thus no duty to warn. | Held: open-and-obvious as a matter of law — no duty to warn. |
| Contributory negligence — did plaintiff fail to exercise ordinary care? | Draughon: he had no reason to anticipate the higher top step and carrying the casket did not impair his ability; factual dispute for jury. | Church: Draughon had just descended the steps, the defect was apparent, and he ascended sideways while not watching his feet — objectively negligent. | Held: plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. |
| Causation — did the top step cause the fall? | Draughon: testimony/photograph marking could support jury finding that the top riser caused the fall or that fact is disputed. | Church: causation need not be resolved because open-and-obvious + contributory negligence dispose of claim. | Held: court did not need to resolve causation; summary judgment affirmed on duty/contributory-negligence grounds. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment in negligence cases | Draughon: negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily jury questions; summary judgment is rare. | Church: where facts viewed objectively are undisputed and establish open-and-obvious risk and plaintiff's lack of reasonable care, summary judgment is proper. | Held: exceptional-case summary judgment appropriate here; entry of judgment for defendant affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deaton v. Bd. of Trs. of Elon Coll., 226 N.C. 433, 38 S.E.2d 561 (N.C. 1946) (open-and-obvious condition supports dismissal)
- Garner v. Atl. Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461 (N.C. 1959) (no duty to warn of obvious hazard)
- Coleman v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 259 N.C. 241, 130 S.E.2d 338 (N.C. 1963) (condition observable by ordinarily intelligent person is open and obvious)
- Branks v. Kern, 320 N.C. 621, 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. 1987) (warning duty applies to hidden dangers known or discoverable by owner)
- Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc., 327 N.C. 412, 395 S.E.2d 112 (N.C. 1990) (fact issue where riser difference small and not obviously apparent)
- Ragland v. Moore, 299 N.C. 360, 261 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. 1980) (summary judgment in negligence cases is rare; jury normally decides reasonable-care issues)