Proposed Assessment v. Carolina Telephone

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the same heightened duty of care owed by an innkeeper “become[s] an absolute duty where a proprietor knew or should have known of a danger that might have been easily removed”
• explaining that an innkeeper’s “qualified duty of ordinary care may become an absolute duty and does become an absolute duty where a proprietor knew or should have known of a danger that might have been easily removed”
• explaining that an innkeeper’s “qualified duty of ordinary care may become an absolute duty and does become an absolute duty where a proprietor knew or should have known of a danger that might have been easily removed”
• simply because the testimony of a witness on which a verdict is based is not plausible will not suffice to justify the court pronouncing as a matter of law that the testimony is manifestly untrue or inherently incredible
• “We do not think that the jury could have been misled, and we may with confidence assume that able counsel hammered down on the jury the importance, from the viewpoint of the defendant, which attaches to a danger open and obvious.”
• plaintiff injured in defective hotel chair

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).