Cobb v. Town of Blowing Rock
| Decision Date | 27 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 300A11.,300A11. |
| Parties | Chelsea Amanda Brooke COBB, by and through D. Rodney KIGHT, Jr., her Guardian ad Litem; and Robert B. Cobb, Father of Plaintiff, Individually v. TOWN OF BLOWING ROCK, a Municipal Corporation, and City of Blowing Rock, a Municipal Corporation. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
722 S.E.2d 479
Chelsea Amanda Brooke COBB, by and through D. Rodney KIGHT, Jr., her Guardian ad Litem; and Robert B. Cobb, Father of Plaintiff, Individually
v.
TOWN OF BLOWING ROCK, a Municipal Corporation, and City of Blowing Rock, a Municipal Corporation.
No. 300A11.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jan. 27, 2012.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 713 S.E.2d 732 (2011), finding error in a judgment entered on 17 October 2008 and an order entered on 30 March 2009, both by Judge Anderson D. Cromer in Superior Court, Watauga County, and remanding for a new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court on 11 January 2012.
[722 S.E.2d 480]
Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC, Charlotte, by R. Kent Brown, for plaintiff-appellees.
Clawson & Staubes, PLLC, Charlotte, by Andrew J. Santaniello and Summer D. Eudy, for defendant-appellant Town of Blowing Rock.
Poisson, Poisson & Bower, PLLC, Wilmington, by E. Stewart Poisson; and Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Dews, P.A., Marion, by Frank Goldsmith, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.PER CURIAM.For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn
...Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp. , 134 N.C. App. 158, 161, 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1999) )), rev'd sub nom. Cobb ex rel. Kight v. Town of Blowing Rock , 365 N.C. 414, 722 S.E.2d 479 (2012).2 The Court summarized the plaintiff's description of the entryway as follows:In front of the shop is an ordina......
- In re M.I.W.
-
King v. Brooks
...purported higher duty of care owed to a child because it was an incorrect statement of law), rev'd on other grounds,––– N.C. ––––, 722 S.E.2d 479 (2012). The applicable portion of the written instructions proposed by Appellant's counsel read as follows: Was the Defendant a purchaser of curr......