 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haney v. Greene Construction1/18/2005
ecast of evidence demonstrating that the [nonmoving party] will be able to make out at least a prima facie case at trial."
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681-682, 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002)(internal citations omitted). Plaintiff's brief presents two issues for our consideration. First, was summary judgment properly granted as to the negligence of defendant; and second, was summary judgment properly entered on the issue of plaintiff's contributory negligence.
Plaintiff asserts that defendant was negligent in failing to warn him, or protect him from the danger posed by the three stacked cinder blocks.
There is no duty to protect or warn, however, "against dangers either known or so obvious and apparent that they reasonably may be expected to be discovered." Moreover, a landowner is not required to warn of hazards of which the lawful visitor has "equal or superior knowledge."
Bolick v. Bon Worth, Inc., 150 N.C. App. 428, 430, 562 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002)(internal citations omitted).
In Bolick, plaintiff was a customer in defendant's store, and was directed to the back of the store in order to use the bathroom. Plaintiff went up several steps to enter the bathroom, but fell upon exiting the bathroom. She averred that the reason she fell was that there was no landing at the top of the steps in front of the bathroom. This Court affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that "even if the steps leading up to and out of the bathroom created a hazardous condition, plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged hazardous condition." Id. at 431, 562 S.E.2d 602, 604.
We hold that even assuming the three cinder blocks constituted a hazardous condition, plaintiff had knowledge of it. The cinder blocks were an open and obvious danger of which plaintiff had equalknowledge prior to his injury , and defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff of the condition.
Because we hold no duty, we do not reach plaintiff's argument on contributory negligence.
AFFIRMED.
Judges TYSON and BRYANT concurs.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|