Hutchins v. Taylor-buick Co

• Decision Date: 06 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 562.,562.
• Citation: 153 S.E. 397
• Parties: HUTCHINS. v. TAYLOR-BUICK CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

(198 N.C. 777)

153 S.E. 397

HUTCHINS.

v.TAYLOR-BUICK CO.

No. 562.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 1930.

The evidence disclosed that the automobile when left in the garage was in good operating condition, and that one hour and thirty-five minutes later it was practically destroyed by fire. No other cars in the garage were burned. Defendant contended that fire must have been caused by a short circuit in plaintiff's car.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yancey County; MacRae, Special Judge.

Action by Charles Hutchins against the Taylor-Buick Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff's automobile caused by fire while stored in the defendant's garage.

The record discloses that the plaintiff, while attending the Legislature of 1929, stored his automobile, intermittently or for a short time, at the defendant's garage in the city of Raleigh, and paid the regular charges therefor. On the night of January 22, or February 1, about the hour of 11 p. m., the plaintiff returned his car to the defendant's garage after having the same out during the late afternoon and the early part of the night, and turned it over to the defendant's agent, as he had customarily done on other occasions. The car was in good operating condition at that time. One hour and thirty-five minutes later the attendant at the defendant's garage called the plaintiff over the telephoneand notified Mm that his automobile had been burned.

Plaintiff hurried to the garage, and found his car in the center of the second floor, still smoking, and was informed that the fire department had just left. The car was practically destroyed by fire. Other cars were in the garage, but they were not injured.

The man in charge of the garage told the plaintiff that he detected the odor of burning rubber and searched everywhere, up stairs, down stairs, and all around, and was unable to locate the fire until he finally discovered it under the hood of plaintiffs car, which he pushed from where it was stored, between two other cars, to the center of the garage floor, and called the fire department to put put the fire, as it was too big at that time for him to manage alone with the extinguishers and sand buckets at hand. The plaintiff's car was the only one burned in the defendant's garage that night.

Defendant contends that, under all the evidence, the fire must have come from a short circuit in the wiring system of plaintiff's car, and that the prima facie case was rebutted. Plaintiff replies by saying that the question was one for the jury.

...