*1 APPEALS THE OF IN GRAY v. SMALL (1991)] [104 husband, GRAY, Plaintiffs v. LYNDON F. BILLY P. GRAY CARMEN wife, SMALL, McQUEEN Defendants LYNN SMALL and
No. 901SC1287 (Filed 1991) 1 October (NCI3d)— —summary steps in home —fall on guest § 59.3 Negligence for defendants in an ac- Summary judgment for defendants Gray’s fall on defendants’ from Carmen arising tion delivering after leaving as she was defendants’ house steps plaintiffs present. licensees; the status of home and therefore held evidence at most issues as to defendants’ the forecast of raises and does not raise an issue 2d, Liability §§ 402-404. Am Jur Premises Liability in home or similar guest 25 ALR2d 598. (Frank RJ, Judge. Brown Order by plaintiffs from APPEAL Court, County. Heard Superior entered 26 September DARE 1991. Appeals August Court of wherein seek plaintiffs damages per-
This is a civil action from defendants’ injuries allegedly resulting sonal The the maintenance of their home. judg- of and in pur-
ment went to defendants’ home for the plaintiffs disclose that children. Plaintiffs pose delivering gift to one of defendants’ through of stairs and entered the house ascended a small set defendants, back door. After a short visit with The plain- door and descended the stairs. through back fell, step injuring tiff that was on stepped grass ankle and foot. filed motions for From a parties
Both defendants, order appealed.
IN THE COURT GRAY v. SMALL *2 Vincent, and Edward Russell E. Twiford, by & O’Neal Twiford O’Neal, appellants. plaintiff, A. for Hornthal, Jr., Maland, Hornthal, & L. P. Ellis Riley, defendant, appellees. HEDRICK, Judge. Chief is the court erred appeal sole on that trial argument
Plaintiffs’ in defendants’ motion when
Summary
pleadings, depositions
is
the
judgment
file,
any
that there
together
with
affidavits show
and admissions
any party
to
and that
any
is no
issue as
material fact
genuine
v. Phoenix
as a
of law. Johnson
is entitled to
matter
judgment
(1980).
247,
Co.,
266
610
N.C. R.
Ins.
300 N.C.
S.E.2d
Mut. Life
proper,
is
determining
judgment
56. In
whether
Civ. P.
most favorable to
light
the
must view the evidence
court
the
of
reasonable
party,
to it
benefit
all
non-moving
giving
the
Freeman
all
in its favor.
resolving
inferences and
inconsistencies
56,
Co.,
212 S.E.2d
App.
v.
Dev.
Sturdivant
N.C.
in
defend
therefore,
duty
“The
the status of licensees.
ants’ home and
held
of
ordinari
owner or
land
possessor
of care owed to licensee
an
willful
and from
doing the licensee
ly is to ‘refrain from
” DeHaven v.
recklessly
danger.’
wantonly
exposing
to
[her]
856,
denied,
858,
Hoskins,
cert.
382 S.E.2d
95 N.C. App.
(1989)
Wilson,
705,
(quoting McCurry
388 S.E.2d
(1988)).
that,
as
“It follows
The record this licensees, when the home of defendants were guests, social she husband and fell as plaintiff slipped Thus, summary for defendants would judgment of or if improper be genuine raised to defendants’ respect material fact issues of IN THE v. SMALL GRAY causing injuries willful conduct of which or or wanton complained. in this raises at most issues
The forecast of evidence record passive to defendants’ No issue is raised negligence. as Thus, summary as to defendants’ proper. defendants was
Affirmed. Arnold concurs. *3 Phillips
Judge dissenting. my In the rules opinion majority of law stated do apply plaintiffs’ allege not case. Plaintiff does not that she was by a condition of the that existed when she injured premises got there, in which event the host’s or willful and wanton conduct would have to be shown. Her claim is that she injured premises because after her arrival on the defendants actively negligently causing grass increased hazard to liability to accumulate on the This steps. imposing basis for approved many a host owner has been cases property starting S.E. Railway Jones Southern Keeton, Also see Prosser and The Law of Torts Sec. (5th 1984). p. ed. In my view affidavits raise an issue of fact as to increasing active hazard to the femme got property after she on the and the should be reversed.