Farrell v. . Thomas and Howard Co.
169 S.E. 224
N.C.
1933
Check Treatment
Adams, J.

The demurrer admits all the allegations of the complaint and all inferences that may reasonably be deduced from it under a liberal construction of its terms. Hendrix v. R. R., 162 N. C., 9; Brewer v. Wynne, 154 N. C., 467. For the purpose of ascertaining its meaning and determining its effect as a pleading its allegations will be liberally *633 construed with a view to administering substantial justice between tbe parties. C. S., 535; Bank v. Duffy, 156 N. C., 83. In Hartsfield v. Bryan, 177 N. C., 166, it was held that a complaint will be sustained as against a demurrer if any part of it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for that purpose can be inferred by a liberal interpretation of the plaintiff’s allegations.

Tested by these principles the judgment overruling the demurrer should be sustained. The material allegations are that the plaintiff went upon the premises of the defendant as an invitee; that the steps leading from the office to the sidewalk were in an unsafe condition; that the bricks in the steps were badly worn and uneven, some of them made particularly dangerous by the holes in them; that the mortar joints between the bricks were higher than the level of the steps; that the defendant knew that the entrance to the office was unsafe and dangerous to the defendant’s customers and invitees; that the defendant knowingly, negligently, and wilfully failed to use due care in providing reasonably safe steps; that while on the steps and in the act of leaving the defendant’s premises the plaintiff was thrown to the sidewalk and injured; that the heel of her shoe caught upon the steps and was pulled from her shoe; and that the negligence of the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

The defendant owed to the plaintiff as its invitee the duty to exercise ordinary care for her safety in going into and retiring from the office. Ellington v. Ricks, 179 N. C., 686. Whether the plaintiff was negligent is a matter of defense and must be set up in the answer and proved on the trial. C. S., 523. If the defendant claims the right to confine the plaintiff to any one of the several acts of negligence set forth in the complaint its remedy is not a demurrer but an application for a bill of particulars. Bristol v. R. R., 175 N. C., 509. Judgment

Affirmed!