Jolley v. General Motors Corp.
| Citation | 55 N.C.App. 383,285 S.E.2d 301 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 8127SC378,8127SC378 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
| Parties | Dennis Elmer JOLLEY v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. |
Hamrick & Hamrick by J. Nat Hamrick, Rutherfordton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Helms, Mulliss & Johnston by E. Osborne Ayscue and W. Donald Carroll, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff assigns as error the court's granting of defendant's motion for directed verdict. In determining whether a motion for directed verdict should be granted, the non-movant's evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to him; a directed verdict is properly granted if and only if the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the nonmovant. Hawks v. Brindle, 51 N.C.App. 19, 275 S.E.2d 277 (1981). In the present case, the plaintiff's evidence must be examined to determine if it would be sufficient to support a verdict for either negligence or breach of warranty.
Oliver v. Royall, 36 N.C.App. 239, 242, 243 S.E.2d 436, 439 (1978). Evidence which raises only a conjecture of negligence is not sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdict. Cox v. Dick, 31 N.C.App. 565, 229 S.E.2d 843 (1976), disc. rev. denied, 291 N.C. 710, 232 S.E.2d 203 (1977). Ordinarily, no inference of negligence arises from the mere fact of accident or injury. O'Quinn v. Southard, 269 N.C. 385, 152 S.E.2d 538 (1967). In an action to recover for injuries resulting from the negligence of a manufacturer, plaintiff must present evidence which tends to show that the product manufactured by defendant was defective at the time it left defendant's plant, and that defendant was negligent in its design of the product, in its selection of materials, in its assembly process, or in its inspection of the product. Cockerham v. Ward, 44 N.C.App. 615, 262 S.E.2d 651, disc. rev. denied, 300 N.C. 195, 269 S.E.2d 622 (1980). To make out a case of breach of implied warranty, the plaintiff must prove that the goods bought and sold were subject to an implied warranty of merchantability, that the goods did not comply with the warranty in that the goods were defective at the time of sale, that his injury was caused by the defective nature of the goods, and that damages were suffered as a result; the burden is upon the purchaser to establish a breach by the seller of the implied warranty by showing that a defect existed at the time of sale. Cockerham v. Ward, supra.
No construction of the evidence in the present case yields an inference that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Certainteed Corp.
...Cir.1998) (citing Driver v. Burlington Aviation, Inc., 110 N.C.App. 519, 527, 430 S.E.2d 476 (1993) ; Jolley v. General Motors Corporation, 55 N.C.App. 383, 385, 285 S.E.2d 301 (1982) ). Such party may also be liable for breach of warranty in the sale of a product, see id. at 301, as well a......
-
McLaughlin v. Michelin Tire Corp.
...107 Ill.Dec. 40, 506 N.E.2d 783; Moslander v. Dayton Tire and Rubber Co., 628 S.W.2d 899 (Mo.App.1981); Jolley v. General Motors Corp., 55 N.C.App. 383, 285 S.E.2d 301 (1982). See summarized analysis in 1 American Law of Products Liability 3d, supra, § 1:5. A product may be defective in thr......
-
Seaside Resorts, Inc. v. Club Car, Inc.
...the injury, and (5) the plaintiff so injured gave timely notice to the seller. N.C.G.S. § 25-2-314 (1986); Jolley v. General Motors Corp., 55 N.C.App. 383, 285 S.E.2d 301 (1982); Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc., 40 N.C.App. 476, 253 S.E.2d 344 (1979), cert. denied, 297 N.C. 612, 257 S.E.2d 219 ......
-
RED HILL HOSIERY MILL v. MagneTek, Inc.
...and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage.5 1 Products Liability § 2.3, at 26; Jolley v. General Motors Corp., 55 N.C.App. 383, 385-86, 285 S.E.2d 301, 303 (1982). Under a claim based on negligence, a manufacturer has the duty to use reasonable care throughout the manufacturing......