M. B. Haynes Elec. Corp. v. Justice Aero Co., 99
Decision Date | 15 January 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 99,99 |
Citation | 139 S.E.2d 682,263 N.C. 437 |
Parties | M. B. HAYNES ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. JUSTICE AERO COMPANY. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Uzzell & DuMont, by Harry DuMont and Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, for plaintiff appellant.
Meekins, Packer & Roberts, by Loren D. Packer, Asheville, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff assigns as error the entry of the judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
Plaintiff's evidence tends to show: Plaintiff corporation maintains its principal office and place of business in Asheville, North Carolina. It owned a 1947 Beechcraft Bonanza airplane, which it operated for business purposes. On 12 April 1961 Marion Burton Haynes, Jr., president of plaintiff, flew this airplane from the airport near Asheville to the Raleigh-Durham Airport. N. E. Cannady, Jr., engineer, vice-president, and manager of plaintiff, was a passenger in the airplane. Haynes landed the airplane at the airport, and taxied it over to the service organization adjacent to the terminal building. Haynes went into the service organization and inquired if they had a radio shop. He was advised that it did not, but that there was a radio shop across the field at the Justice Aero Company, the defendant, which was one-fourth to one-half mile from where the service organization is situate. He and Cannady rented an automobile and drove to the defendant's building. Haynes went inside and spoke with Mr. Justice, who referred him to an employee of defendant, Boiken Roseborough, who was in the rear of the building in defendant's radio shop. He asked Roseborough if he could check the radio in plaintiff's airplane and check out the engine noise, and whether or not this could be done in the next couple of days while he was in Raleigh. Roseborough told him he could check the radio and that he could get the airplane the next day. He told Justice he wanted the airplane fixed. He gave the key to the airplane to Roseborough so he could check the radio, because the radio would not operate in the plane without the key. He told Roseborough where he had left the airplane, gave him its number, and left it to his discretion whether or not the airplane should be moved to defendant's shop.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint in effect that it delivered its airplane to defendant for repairs. Defendant admits in its answer that 'on April 12, 1961, plaintiff delivered to the defendant the said aircraft for the purpose of checking the radio therein, which, as defendant is advised and believes, was picking up motor noise on the flight of said aircraft from Asheville to the Raleigh-Durham Airport.'
According to plaintiff's evidence, and according to the allegations in its complaint and the admissions in defendant's answer, the relation of plaintiff and defendant was that of bailor and bailee: defendant in its brief admits this relationship. Under the circumstances here defendant was under a legal duty--it was not an insurer--to exercise ordinary care to protect plaintiff's airplane against loss, damage or destruction, and to return it in as good condition as when he received it, and liability for any damages to the airplane while in its possession turns upon the question of the presence or absence of actionable ordinary negligence on its part or on the part of its agent. Dellinger v. Bridges, 259 N.C. 90, 130 S.E.2d 19; Millers Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois v. Atkinson Motors, Inc., 240 N.C. 183, 81 S.E.2d 416; Vincent v. Woody, 238 N.C. 118, 76 S.E.2d 356; Beck v. Wilkins-Ricks Co., 179 N.C. 231, 102 S.E. 313, 9 A.L.R. 554; Hanes v. Shapiro & Smith, 168 N.C. 24, 84 S.E. 33.
Plaintiff's evidence also tends to show the following: When Haynes delivered the airplane to the defendant, 'it was in fine performing condition; the wings were in fine condition; the brakes were working fine.' About 5:15 p. m. on the next day Roseborough told him over the telephone the airplane had been in a collision. On the following day, April 14, he went to defendant's place of business and saw plaintiff's airplane parked there. He testified: 'When I saw the plane on April 14, 1961, it was obvious it had been in a collision, the propeller was damaged beyond repair, the wing was damaged, and it was a sickening sight to me.' Haynes testified: He further testified: After the accident they said that the brake was faulty.'
N. E. Cannady, Jr., testified:
Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that it delivered its airplane to defendant in fine performing condition, with its wings in fine condition, and its brakes in fine working...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Safeguard Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Cold Storage Co., 195
...circumstances, is the measure of the obligation of a bailee for hire, in the absence of express contract. (Haynes Electric Corp. v. Justice Aero Co., 263 N.C. 437, 139 S.E.2d 682; Dellinger v. Bridges, 259 N.C. 90, 130 S.E.2d 19; Millers Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois v. Atkinson Motors......
-
Olan Mills, Inc. of Tenn. v. Cannon Aircraft Executive Terminal, Inc., 279
...turns upon the question of the presence or absence of actionable or ordinary negligence on its part, M. B. Haynes Electric Corp. v. Aero Corp., 263 N.C. 437, 139 S.E.2d 682; Dellinger v. Bridges, 259 N.C. 90, 130 S.E.2d 19; Millers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Atkinson Motors, Inc., 240 N.C. 183......
-
Torres v. Smith, 114
...artificial force of the prima facie rule under the above Section seems to permit a finding of agency. Haynes Electric Corporation v. Justice Aero Company, 263 N.C. 437, 139 S.E.2d 682. The plaintiffs' evidence does not negate agency. Hence, the statute is sufficient to repel the motion for ......
-
Benchmark Elecs., Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
...actionable negligence against defendant is on plaintiff, and remains on it throughout the trial." M.B. Haynes Elec. Corp. v. Justice Aero Co., 263 N.C. 437, 441, 139 S.E.2d 682, 685 (1965). Cree has not carried this burden, and this court finds Cree has failed to prove that Benchmark was ne......