Griffin v. Blankenship
Decision Date | 26 March 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 247,247 |
Citation | 102 S.E.2d 451,248 N.C. 81 |
Parties | J. W. GRIFFIN v. A. V. BLANKENSHIP, trading as A. V. Blankenship Engineering Company, and Ernest B. Wilson. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Richard M. Welling, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellant.
Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman, Eugene M. Anderson, Jr., Charlotte, for defendants appellee.
This appeal turns on whether or not the plaintiff's evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to him, as it must be when considering a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the question of actionable negligence. Williamson v. Clay, 243 N.C. 337, 90 S.E.2d 727; Singletary v. Nixon, 239 N.C. 634, 80 S.E.2d 676; Hughes v. Thayer, 229 N.C.773, 51 S.E.2d 488; Atkins v. White Transportation Co., 224 N.C. 688, 32 S.E.2d 209.
The plaintiff devotes a substantial part of his brief in arguing that the defendant operator of the bulldozer was not an employee of the plaintiff. Therefore, he contends that both the defendant operator and his employer, the owner of the equipment, are responsible to the plaintiff for the injuries he sustained, citing Hodge v. McGuire, 235 N.C. 132, 69 S.E.2d 227.
It is not necessary to determine whether the operator of Blankenship's bulldozer was an employee of the plaintiff or of Blankenship if the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to establish actionable negligence against the defendant Wilson. 'Truelove v. Durham & Southern R. Co., 22 N.C. 704, 24 S.E.2d 537, 538.
The operator of the bulldozer, on the occasion involved herein, owed to the plaintiff the duty to exercise due care in the operation and manipulation of the bulldozer.
In Butler v. Allen, 233 N.C. 484, 64 S.E.2d 561, 563, this Court said: * * *'
To recover damages for an injury, it is not only necessary to prove a negligent act but it is equally necessary to show by the greater weight of the evidence that such negligent act was the proximate cause or a proximate cause of the injury.
An integral factor necessary to constitute proximate cause is foreseeability. Cranfield v. City of Winston-Salem, 200 N.C. 680, 158 S.E. 241; McIntyre v. Monarch Elevator & Machine Co., 230 N.C. 539, 54 S.E.2d 45.
In the case of Osborne v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Co., 207 N.C. 545, 177 S.E. 796, 797, it is said: 'Foreseeable injury is a requisite of proximate cause, and proximate cause is a requisite for actionable negligence, and actionable negligence is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weaver v. Bennett, 387
...v. Aircraft Co., 253 N.C. 482, 117 S.E.2d 496, the quoted statement was not the basis of decision on first appeal. In Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E.2d 451, the defendant had furnished a bulldozer and an operator for $10.00 an hour. This Court held the evidence insufficient to......
-
Duvall v. United States
...being the care an ordinary prudent man would exercise under similar circumstances, and when charged with a like duty." Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E.2d 451; Barnes v. Caulbourne, 240 N.C. 721, 83 S.E.2d What constitutes due care or proper care in one case may be gross neglige......
-
Ballou v. Sigma Nu General Fraternity
...of exercising care to protect another person against injury may be created by contract or by operation of law. See Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E.2d 451 (1958). A statute is not always required for the duty to arise by operation of law. Rice v. Turner, 191 Va. 601, 62 S.E.2d 2......
-
Modern Elec. Co. v. Dennis
...the care an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under similar circumstances, and when charged with a like duty. Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81, 102 S.E.2d 451; Barnes v. Caulbourne, 240 N.C. 721, 83 S.E.2d 898. It is well settled in North Carolina that foreseeability is a requisite o......