McNair v. Boyette
Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 7210SC298,7210SC298 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Thomas B. McNAIR v. Edward Lee BOYETTE and Oscar Lee Hall. |
Twiggs & McCain, by Howard F. Twiggs and Grover C. McCain, Jr., Yarborough, Blanchard, Tucker & Denson, by Charles F. Blanchard and James E. Cline, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
Maupin, Taylor & Ellis, by Armistead J. Maupin, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee, Edward Lee Boyette.
Plaintiff assigns as error the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Boyette.
While it is conceded that summary judgment will not be as feasible in negligence cases, where the standard of the prudent man must be applied, as it would in other cases, summary judgment in proper where it appears that there can be no recovery even if the facts as claimed by plaintiff are true. Pridgen v. Hughes, 9 N.C.App. 635, 177 S.E.2d 425 (1970). When the facts are admitted or established, negligence is a question of law and the court must say whether it does or does not exist and this rule extends to the question of proximate cause. Hudson v. Petroleum Transit Co., 250 N.C. 435, 108 S.E.2d 900 (1959).
Was plaintiff barred as a matter of law from recovery against defendant Boyette?
In order for there to be a recovery against a defendant, the defendant must be shown to be negligent and his negligence must be the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Clarke v. Holman, 274 N.C. 425, 163 S.E.2d 783 (1968). Proximate cause is a cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produced the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred, and from which a person of ordinary prudence could have reasonably foreseen that such a result, or some similar injurious result was probable under the facts as they existed. Adams v. State Board of Education, 248 N.C. 506, 103 S.E.2d 854 (1958); Grimes v. Gilbert, 6 N.C.App. 304, than one proximate cause, that which is 170 S.E.2d 65 (1969). If there is more new and entirely independent breaks the sequence of events and insulates the original or primary negligence and the test by which negligent conduct of one is to be insulated as a matter of law by the independent negligent act of another is reasonable unforeseeability on the part of the original actor of the subsequent intervening act and resultant injury. Butner v. Spease, 217 N.C. 82, 6 S.E.2d 808 (1940).
In Butner, Chief Justice Stacy quoted the following from Milwaukee & St. P.R.R. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469, 24 L.Ed. 256:
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hall was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pope v. Bridge Broom, Inc.
...Timmons–Goodson dissented on the basis that the undisputed facts of that case were indistinguishable from those of McNair v. Boyette, 15 N.C.App. 69, 189 S.E.2d 590, aff'd, 282 N.C. 230, 192 S.E.2d 457 (1972).This Court has previously stated that when a plaintiff has become aware that poten......
-
Daboll v. Hoden
...531, 532; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 70 N.W.2d 351, 354; Mally v. Asanovich, 149 Mont. 99, 423 P.2d 294, 297; McNair v. Boyette, 15 N.C.App. 69, 189 S.E.2d 590, 592, aff'd, 282 N.C. 230, 192 S.E.2d 457; Olstad v. Olstad, 126 N.W.2d 795, 797 (N.D.1964); Preston v. Lamb, 20 Utah 2d 260,......
-
Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg
...negligence, then the original negligent actor is still liable. Id. at 195, 322 S.E.2d at 173. Defendant relies on McNair v. Boyette, 15 N.C.App. 69, 189 S.E.2d 590,aff'd,282 N.C. 230, 192 S.E.2d 457 (1972). In McNair, the defendant had negligently collided with another car. The plaintiff ar......
-
Hillman v. U.S. Liability Ins. Co., 8118SC1182
...that some injury would occur. (Emphasis original)" Id. at 512-513, 255 S.E.2d at 320-321. In the earlier decision of McNair v. Boyette, 15 N.C.App. 69, 189 S.E.2d 590 (1972), this Court discussed in detail the legal definition of intervening negligence. The McNair decision involved a time l......