majority"> BbogdeN, J.

(1) What duty does an employer owe an employee with reference to steps or stairways used by employees in the due and proper discharge of their duties?

*95 (2) Does the evidence warrant a judgment of nonsuit upon the ground of contributory negligence?

The construction and maintenance of steps, stairways and platforms, constituting a part of the permanent ways and appliances furnished by an employer to an employee, require the same degree of care upon the part of such employer; that is to say, that the employer must exercise ordinary care in providing reasonably safe ways and appliances for the use of the employee in discharging the duties imposed by the contract of employment. The testimony liberally interpreted, tends to show that the stairway was constantly used by the plaintiff and other employees as a part of the permanent ways and appliances of the laundry. See the following step cases: Urquhart v. R. R., 156 N. C., 581, 72 S. E., 630; Bohannon v. Stores Co., 197 N. C., 755, 150 S. E., 356; Farrell v. Thomas and Howard Co., 204 N. C., 631. Moreover, there was evidence that the steps were “worn slick and rounded off at the edge. They were worn in the center of the tread, . . . they were worn right much.” Plaintiff said: “I stepped in a slick worn place that caused my foot to slip from under me.”

The foregoing evidence warranted an inference that the steps under all the circumstances were maintained in a negligent manner.

Notwithstanding, the conduct of the plaintiff must be measured by the same yardstick as that of the defendant. Therefore, the inquiry must shift to her. Did she exercise ordinary care for her own safety?

She knew the condition of the steps, because she had been using them for six years. She said: “I walked up them frequently. Sometimes I did not go more than once a day, and frequently two or three times. I knew there were no guard rails or banisters to the stairway.” The evidence further discloses that plaintiff was descending a long flight of stairs with a double armful of packages. She selected the packages according to her own judgment or as she put it: “I guess that I was the judge of the turn. I was not given any instructions about it. They never did tell me how many to bring down. They did not tell me how to come down the. steps.” The double armful of packages, which the plaintiff was carrying, made it impossible for her to see the steps as she was descending. While she could see the steps ahead of her she was really placing her feet by guess. A liberal interpretation of plaintiff’s testimony leads to the inevitable conclusion that at the time of her injury she was not exercising ordinary care for her own protection, and must, therefore, bear the consequences of her unfortunate injury.

The question of handrails or banisters was discussed in the briefs, but the absence of banisters does not appear to have had anything to do with the injury.

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress