265 N.C. App. 164
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff (Draughon) attended a funeral at Evening Star Holiness Church and, at the funeral home’s request, helped carry a casket up an exterior stairway into the sanctuary.
- After descending the same stairs minutes earlier without incident, Plaintiff and three others carried the casket up the stairs; Plaintiff tripped at or near the top step and injured his knees.
- The top step (threshold into the church) had a riser higher than the preceding steps (≈2–4 inches difference alleged); Plaintiff’s engineering expert attested this variation was a defect.
- Plaintiff sued the Church for negligence (and related theories); the Church defended that the hazard was open and obvious and that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Church, finding Plaintiff had equal or superior knowledge and failed to exercise due care; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Church owed a duty to warn of the irregular top step | Draughon: evidence shows the riser variation was not perceptible and thus was a hidden defect; Church had duty to warn | Church: Plaintiff had equal/superior knowledge because he had just descended the stairs; no duty to warn of open-and-obvious hazard | Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists on whether the defect was hidden or open-and-obvious, so duty is for jury |
| Whether Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law | Draughon: he was capable, had no reason to perceive the concealed defect, and the fall was caused by the hidden riser variation | Church: carrying a casket up stairs, not using ramp, and prior traversal show contributory negligence | Reversed: contributory negligence not demonstrated as a matter of law; factual disputes remain |
| Whether prior cases requiring knowledge of hazard control here | Draughon: Lamm and other precedents support that imperceptible riser variations can be hidden defects for jury determination | Church: Bolick, Von Viczay, Kelly show prior traversal or clear visibility defeats duty | Court: Distinguishes Bolick/Von Viczay (where hazard was obvious); aligns with Lamm—issue for jury |
| Whether summary judgment appropriate in negligence/contributory negligence case | Draughon: negligence and contributory negligence ordinarily are jury questions; summary judgment improper given competing evidence | Church: the record conclusively shows open-and-obvious condition and contributory negligence | Reversed: summary judgment improper; material factual disputes preclude ruling as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc., 327 N.C. 412 (1990) (riser-height variation that is not obvious can be a hidden defect for jury)
- Bolick v. Bon Worth, Inc., 150 N.C. App. 428 (2002) (prior safe navigation of an obvious condition may negate duty to warn)
- Von Viczay v. Thoms, 140 N.C. App. 737 (2000) (open-and-obvious icy condition known to plaintiff defeats duty)
- Kelly v. Regency Centers Corp., 203 N.C. App. 339 (2010) (failure to avoid an open-and-obvious danger can be contributory negligence as a matter of law)
- Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 250 N.C. 151 (1959) (properly constructed and visible steps generally negate landlord liability)