<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Tort-Negligence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/tort-negligence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:03:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Personal Injury – Shooting – 52-Year-Old Shooter – Parents’ Gun&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-personal-injury-shooting-52-year-old-shooter-parents-gun/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-personal-injury-shooting-52-year-old-shooter-parents-gun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangerous instrumentalities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bridges v. Parrish </em> We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-personal-injury-shooting-52-year-old-shooter-parents-gun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Constructive Fraud &amp; Unfair Trade Practices – Real Property – Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-constructive-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-constructive-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real estate broker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Trantham v. Martin </em>  Where plaintiffs presented evidence that (1) defendant Martin was an experienced real estate broker, (2) plaintiffs had limited education, (3) Martin fostered a personal relationship with plaintiffs, (4) Martin handled the paperwork when he bought plaintiffs’ farm in an owner-financed transaction, (5) plaintiffs trusted Martin and thought of him as a friend, and (6) Martin sent plaintiffs a letter saying, “I continue to appreciate very much the confidence that you have always placed in me,” there was enough evidence of a confidential relationship to submit the issue to the jury.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-constructive-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Unfair Trade Practices – Real Property – Mortgages&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair trade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Hedgepeth v. Lexington State Bank </em>  Since the deed of trust in question purported to secure, not only the $117,600 loan that was made contemporaneously with it, but also the outstanding debts of plaintiffs’ business, the deed of trust remained in effect even after the $117,600 debt was satisfied]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/18/tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; FTCA – Discretionary Function Exception – State Fair – National Guard Display – Bradley Fighting Vehicle – Child’s Injury&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/tortnegligence-ftca-discretionary-function-exception-state-fair-national-guard-display-bradley-fighting-vehicle-childs-injury/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/tortnegligence-ftca-discretionary-function-exception-state-fair-national-guard-display-bradley-fighting-vehicle-childs-injury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort Claims Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>C.H. v. United States </em> : Plaintiffs’ allegations go beyond the National Guard’s maintenance, management and personnel decisions; they implicate the discretionary decisions of service members who manned the National Guard display at the state fair as to whether or not to allow civilian visitors (including children) to enter a Bradley Fighting Vehicle exhibit, what kind of warning to give civilian visitors (including children) entering the BFV exhibit, and what level of supervision the civilian visitors (including children) entering the BFV exhibit should receive in light of the maintenance, management and personnel decisions that had been made. Such discretionary decisions are not subject to a policy analysis; therefore, they are not shielded by the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity set out in the federal Tort Claims Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/tortnegligence-ftca-discretionary-function-exception-state-fair-national-guard-display-bradley-fighting-vehicle-childs-injury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; STCA – Highway Design &amp; Signage – Rainy Conditions&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-highway-design-signage-rainy-conditions/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-highway-design-signage-rainy-conditions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydroplaning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Couchon v. N.C. Department of Transportation</em> : Although plaintiff’s experts presented well-reasoned opinions that plaintiff’s decedent’s accident likely resulted from hydroplaning, their testimony only provided circumstantial evidence; in fact, the experts conceded that their opinions about the cause of the crash were based on probability, not certainty.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-highway-design-signage-rainy-conditions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; STCA – State Trooper – Arrest – Assault – Dislocated Elbow&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-state-trooper-arrest-assault-dislocated-elbow/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-state-trooper-arrest-assault-dislocated-elbow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic laws]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bernhardt v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety</em> Although the state trooper presented evidence that his use of force was appropriate when he arrested a smaller, older man who had violated traffic laws while driving his cancer-stricken wife to the emergency room, other evidence – including a video recording of the incident – supported the Industrial Commission’s finding and conclusion that the trooper was negligent when he dislocated plaintiff’s elbow during the arrest.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/tortnegligence-stca-state-trooper-arrest-assault-dislocated-elbow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Medical Malpractice – Proximate Cause – Expert Testimony – Nerve Damage – Positioning During Surgery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-medical-malpractice-proximate-cause-expert-testimony-nerve-damage-positioning-during-surgery-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-medical-malpractice-proximate-cause-expert-testimony-nerve-damage-positioning-during-surgery-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 19:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Williams v. Humphreys </em> Where plaintiff’s experts identified the precise negligence that resulted in her injury – malpositioning during surgery – the experts did not simply presume negligence from the fact of injury. We reverse summary judgment for defendants.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-medical-malpractice-proximate-cause-expert-testimony-nerve-damage-positioning-during-surgery-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Personal Injury – Auto Accident – Damages – Plaintiff’s Evidence&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-personal-injury-auto-accident-damages-plaintiffs-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-personal-injury-auto-accident-damages-plaintiffs-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 15:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cross-Examination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Williams v. Hampton</em>  Even though defendant didn’t put on any evidence, and even though plaintiff presented evidence of $74,000 in medical expenses, since cross-examination of plaintiff’s doctor revealed that other causes might have led to plaintiff’s medical condition, the jury’s award of only $5,000 does not entitle plaintiff to a new trial.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/tortnegligence-personal-injury-auto-accident-damages-plaintiffs-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Battery – Respondeat Superior – Retention – Investigation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/30/tortnegligence-battery-respondeat-superior-retention-investigation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/30/tortnegligence-battery-respondeat-superior-retention-investigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 14:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sufficient Evidence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Watts v. Bell </em>  Although the defendant-employer did not fire the defendant-employee as soon as plaintiff accused him of sexual battery, the employer did investigate, and it supervised the employee closely between the accusation and his trial. Moreover, the employer instructed the cleaning service to send a different cleaning person so as to safeguard against another incident or a confrontation between plaintiff and the employee.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/30/tortnegligence-battery-respondeat-superior-retention-investigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Domestic Relations – Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Parent &amp; Child – Custody&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/tortnegligence-domestic-relations-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-parent-child-custody/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/tortnegligence-domestic-relations-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-parent-child-custody/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 20:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marital Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Roberts v. Huckabee </em> In his fraud claim, the plaintiff-husband alleges the defendant-wife “concealed” a life insurance policy from him by failing to include it in her lists of marital property in the parties’ domestic action. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/29/tortnegligence-domestic-relations-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-parent-child-custody/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
