Evans v. Evans
Decision Date | 17 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. COA01-1022.,COA01-1022. |
Citation | 569 S.E.2d 303,153 NC App. 54 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jonathan Keith EVANS, Plaintiff, v. Joseph S. EVANS and Harold Keith Evans, d/b/a Evans Farms, Western Oil Field Supply Company, d/b/a Lake Company, Custom Stamping & Mfg. Co., Brock Tractor & Equipment Co., Inc., and Lee Tractor Co., Inc., d/b/a Lee Tractor of Rocky Mount, Defendants. |
Gibbons, Cozart, Jones, Hughes, Sallenger & Taylor, by W. Earl Taylor, Jr. and Andrew J. Whitley, Wilson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Donald F. Lively, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee Custom Stamping & Mfg. Co. HUDSON, Judge.
Jonathan Keith Evans ("plaintiff") appeals a judgment entered in favor of Custom Stamping and Manufacturing Company, Incorporated ("Custom"), and an order denying his motion for a new trial. For the reasons given below, we affirm.
Plaintiff was injured when a clamp failed on an irrigation system while he was working for Evans Farms, a farming business owned by his father and uncle. Some part of the irrigation assembly, or possibly water at high pressure, struck plaintiff in the face, causing serious, permanent injuries, including blindness in both eyes. Neither plaintiff's father nor his uncle, who were both working nearby when the accident occurred, saw what happened. Plaintiff does not remember anything about the incident.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Evans Farms and Western Oil Field Supply, d/b/a Lake Company ("Lake Company"). Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add additional defendants, of which Custom is one. Custom manufactured the clamp at issue for Lake Company, which was the clamp's retailer. Prior to trial, plaintiff's claims against all defendants except Custom were either dismissed or settled, and the case proceeded to trial only against Custom.
Plaintiff's claims against Custom included failure to give adequate warnings; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and negligence in the design of the clamp. Dr. Anand David Kasbekar testified for plaintiff as an expert witness in the field of mechanical engineering and material science and in the field of failure analysis of metallic components. He testified that, due to its construction, the clamp deformed with use, as a result of which the clamp could appear to be securely closed but then "flop open." Dr. Kasbekar opined that the deformation of the clamp occurred as a result of being closed around a part that was slightly too big or around parts that were not properly aligned. Additional testimony of relevance here was that of David Stout, the president of Custom, who testified to the nature of Custom's business. We discuss the testimony in further detail below.
At the close of all the evidence, Custom moved for directed verdict, and the trial court granted Custom's motion on the issues of failure to give adequate warnings and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court did not give the specific instruction that plaintiff requested on the duty of a manufacturer with respect to design. The jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff was not injured by the negligence of Custom. Plaintiff moved for a new trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Custom and denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Plaintiff now appeals.
In his first two assignments of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by granting directed verdicts for Custom on plaintiff's claims for failure to provide adequate warnings and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. "On appeal from a directed verdict, this Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of a plaintiff's claim." Horack v. Southern Real Estate Co. of Charlotte, Inc., 150 N.C.App. 305, ___, 563 S.E.2d 47, 53 (2002). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). On a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence, "the trial court must determine whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, is sufficient to take the case to the jury." Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. West, 100 N.C.App. 668, 670, 397 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1990), aff'd, 328 N.C. 566, 402 S.E.2d 409 (1991). Edwards v. West, 128 N.C.App. 570, 573, 495 S.E.2d 920, 923 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 348 N.C. 282, 501 S.E.2d 918 (1998).
The General Assembly has created special proof requirements in a cause of action for the failure to give an adequate warning in a product liability case:
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-5(a) (2001). Plaintiff argues that the testimony of Dr. Kasbekar regarding warnings was sufficient to address these requirements and send the claim to the jury. Dr. Kasbekar testified as follows regarding warnings:
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by directing a verdict for Custom on the issue of whether Custom breached the implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in North Carolina, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crickenberger v. Hyundai
...also come to this conclusion include: Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So.2d 101, 111 (Ala.2003); Evans v. Evans, 153 N.C.App. 54, 569 S.E.2d 303, 307 (2002); DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 355 N.C. 672, 565 S.E.2d 140, 151 (2002); Alvarez v. American Isuzu Motors, 321 ......
-
Block v. Woo Young Med. Co.
...posed a substantial risk of harm to a reasonably foreseeable claimant.6N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B–5; see also Evans v. Evans, 153 N.C.App. 54, 569 S.E.2d 303, 311 (2002) (concurring opinion). Woo Young claims that these elements are not met because it did not know, nor in the exercise of ordinar......
-
Manley v. Doe
...Morrison, 319 N.C. at 301–02, 354 S.E.2d at 497–98 (shoe); Rose, 288 N.C. at 60–61, 215 S.E.2d at 577–78(car);Evans v. Evans, 153 N.C.App. 54, 61, 569 S.E.2d 303, 307–08 (2002) (clamp on irrigation system); Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc. (Red Hill I), 138 N.C.App. 70, 71–74, ......
- Farber v. North Carolina Psychology Bd.