Quantcast
Home (page 10)

Tag Archives: Tort/Negligence

Tort/Negligence – Professional Negligence – Real Property – Appraisals – Justifiable Reliance – Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations (access required)

Cabrera v. Hensley Since plaintiffs had already contracted to buy the lots at issue before the defendant-appraisers appraised the lots, plaintiffs could not have relied on the appraisals in obligating themselves to buy the lots.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Animal Attack – Dog Bites – Vicious Propensity – Owner’s Lack of Knowledge (access required)

Starcher v. Kea The dogs that bit plaintiff lived on land which defendant’s father had transferred to her the year before the attack, and defendant fed them. Although defendant referred to the dogs as “wild,” this does not indicate knowledge of the dogs’ viciousness without evidence of any prior instances of vicious conduct.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Respondeat Superior – Dismissal of Agent – Battery (access required)

Metts v. New Hanover Regional Medical Center Although plaintiff alleges that an individual defendant hit plaintiff without provocation, plaintiff failed to serve the individual defendants with process within the statute of limitations period, and plaintiff does not appeal the dismissal of his claims against those defendants.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Sovereign Immunity – Schools & School Boards – School Boards Trust (access required)

Johnson v. Avery County Board of Education Plaintiff argues that the defendant-school board waived its sovereign immunity, but the only basis for plaintiff’s argument is the board’s participation in the N.C. School Boards Trust. We have held that participation in the Trust does not operate to waive a school board’s right to assert sovereign immunity.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Baseball Game Attendee – Hit by Wild Pitch – Bull Pen – Unscreened Area (access required)

Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, LLC Since the defendant-ballpark operator provided an area of screened seats, it discharged its duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of lawful visitors. Plaintiff, who chose an unscreened area near the bullpen and was hit by a wild pitch, has not shown that the ballpark operator was negligent.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Negligent Inspection – Municipal – Sovereign Immunity – Insurance (access required)

Bullard v. Wake County Although the defendant-county had insurance during the period in which county inspectors okayed construction and occupancy of a house that has since been found unfit for human habitation, an endorsement to the insurance policy (applicable to the first year and a half at issue) limited coverage to “occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defense is asserted, a court of competent jurisdiction determines the defense of governmental immunity not to be applicable.”

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Baseball Game Attendee – Hit by Wild Pitch – Bull Pen – Unscreened Area (access required)

Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, LLC Since the defendant-ballpark operator provided an area of screened seats, it discharged its duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of lawful visitors. Plaintiff, who chose an unscreened area near the bullpen and was hit by a wild pitch, has not shown that the ballpark operator was negligent.

Read More »

Corporate – Sister Subsidiaries – Agency – Tort/Negligence – Defamation — Civil Practice — Personal Jurisdiction (access required)

Lianyungang FirstDart Tackle Co. v. DSM Dyneema B.V. Although plaintiff alleges that a Dutch corporation and its sister N.C. limited liability company operate a “single, unified website” and hold themselves out to the public as a single entity, the N.C. LLC is not liable for the alleged defamatory statement in a press release issued by the Dutch corporation.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Summary Judgment – Motion to Continue – Tort/Negligence — Real Property – Contractor – Renovation (access required)

McMillan v. Ryan Jackson Properties, LLC The hearing on the defendant-contractor’s summary judgment motion was conducted on July 7, 2011, five weeks after plaintiffs were notified that the contractor’s project file was available for pick-up. Plaintiffs offered no explanation for their three-week delay in picking up the project file. Five weeks was a reasonable time for plaintiffs and their expert to retrieve and examine the contractor’s file in order to discover any evidence which could be used to oppose the summary judgment motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to continue.

Read More »