Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 777SC478

• Decision Date: 16 May 1978
• Docket Number: No. 777SC478,777SC478
• Citation: 36 N.C.App. 350,244 S.E.2d 208
• Parties: Floyd MOORE v. FIELDCREST MILLS, INC., and Monsanto Company.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 208

244 S.E.2d 208

36 N.C.App. 350

Floyd MOORE v. FIELDCREST MILLS, INC., and Monsanto Company.

No. 777SC478.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 16, 1978.

Narron, Holdford, Babb, Harrison & Rhodes by William H. Holdford, Wilson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis by R. Michael Strickland, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.

Connor, Lee, Connor, Reece & Bunn by John M. Reece, Wilson, for defendant-appellee Monsanto Co.

MORRIS, Judge.

Plaintiff's cause of action is grounded upon negligence. Paragraphs VII and VIII of his complaint specifically allege the negligence of the defendants. In his brief, plaintiff relies heavily upon Honeycutt v. Bryan, 240 N.C. 238, 81 S.E.2d 653 (1954), which deals with a shipper's duty to load cargo in a safe manner. It is clear, however, that this duty is nothing more than the normal duty of due care. Also, plaintiff's brief characterizes his status as that of an "invitee". Again, the landowner's duty is nothing more than the duty of due care. Thus, plaintiff's complaint states only a cause of action for negligence.

Upon defendants' motion for summary judgment, they must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they, as movants, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972).

In the present case there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The only potential conflict in the present case is whether Fieldcrest's employee Mr. Boyd "knew . . . that where the length of the bales ran with the width of the trailer as the defendant, Monsanto Company, had loaded these bales the stacks of bales were unstable and would tumble over". Plaintiff examined Boyd, and Boyd testified that the occasion of plaintiff's injury "was the only time they (a stack of bales) had fell (sic)." Boyd did testify that "bales of acrylic fiber with the plastic exterior coating are a little slippery". Otherwise, the record is devoid of any suggestion that Boyd knew the stacks were "unstable and would tumble over".

This Court, as well as our Supreme Court, has frequently warned parties that "when the moving party presents an adequately supported motion, the opposing party must come forward with facts, not mere allegations, which controvert the facts set forth in the moving party's case, or otherwise suffer a summary judgment." Frank H. Connor Co. v. Spanish Inns Charlotte, Limited et al., 294 N.C. 661, ---, 242 S.E.2d 785, 793 (1978). In this case, plaintiff only has mere allegations to support his claim. He offers no facts whatsoever to establish negligence. Where the moving party offers facts and the opposing party only offers mere allegations, there is no genuine issue as to a material fact.

Save for the general unsupported...