Rash v. Waterway Landing Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 253 N.C. App. 747

Vanessa Rash (plaintiff) lived in a condominium complex and used a wooden walkway with a 90-degree turn to reach the parking lot after taking the elevator.
Defendant homeowners association contracted CAMS to maintain common areas; CAMS employee Greene notified defendant in Nov. 2012 that mold on the walkways made them slick when wet but received no response.
On Jan. 3, 2013, after an overnight rain, Rash exited the building, made the turn around the walkway column, and within a few feet slipped on the moldy, wet walkway and fractured her femur.
Rash sued for negligence; defendant pleaded contributory negligence and moved for summary judgment. At the hearing the trial court found defendant negligent but concluded Rash was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because she admitted she was not looking down when she fell, and granted summary judgment for defendant.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed summary judgment de novo and examined whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rash, contributory negligence was established as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contributory negligence bars recovery and whether summary judgment was appropriate	Rash argued the evidence (lack of notice of mold hazard, prior dry use, short distance after the turn, and that the mold’s slipperiness was not visually apparent) creates a genuine issue whether she exercised ordinary care	Defendant argued Rash admitted she was not looking down and therefore failed the duty to look where she was walking, establishing contributory negligence as a matter of law	Reversed: court held material factual disputes exist (whether a reasonable person would have looked or would have seen the hazard); contributory negligence not established as a matter of law, so summary judgment improper

Pulley v. Rex Hosp., 326 N.C. 701 (N.C. 1990) (Supreme Court: duty to look does not require constant downward gaze; view facts in totality to decide obviousness)
Martishius v. Carolco Studios, 355 N.C. 465 (N.C. 2002) (defendant bears burden to prove contributory negligence; usually a jury question)
Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 300 N.C. 669 (N.C. 1980) (plaintiff negligent when ignoring unreasonable risks that would be apparent to a prudent person)
Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 303 N.C. 462 (N.C. 1981) (focus is whether a person exercising ordinary care would have looked down under similar circumstances)
Dowless v. Kroger Co., 148 N.C. App. 168 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (obvious-hazard analysis in slip-and-fall; factual circumstances can preclude summary judgment)
Crane v. Caldwell, 113 N.C. App. 362 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994) (reversing directed verdict where plaintiff was unaware of slippery condition and condition was not visually discernable)