Warren v. Jeffries
1965 N.C. LEXIS 1327, 139 S.E.2d 718, 263 N.C. 531 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must present some evidence to support the specific acts of negligence alleged; the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply where the cause of an accident is a matter of pure speculation.
Facts:
- The defendant, C. W. Meadows, parked his Chevrolet automobile on an incline in the yard of the home of 6-year-old Terry Lee Enoch.
- The car remained parked and untouched for approximately one hour.
- Meadows gave the car keys to Terry's mother so she could drive to a store.
- Terry and four other children, with the eldest being 20, entered the back seat of the 4-door sedan.
- None of the children entered the front seat or touched any of the car's control mechanisms.
- When Terry, the last child to enter, closed the rear door, a "clicking" sound was heard from the front of the vehicle.
- The car immediately began rolling backward down the incline toward a ditch.
- Terry jumped out of the moving car but fell, and the front wheel ran over his chest, causing fatal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, the parent of the deceased child Terry Lee Enoch, filed a wrongful death action against the defendant, C. W. Meadows, in a state trial court.
- At the trial, after the plaintiff presented all of their evidence, the defendant made a motion for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's case before it could go to the jury.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff establish a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to overcome a motion for nonsuit when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to support the specific allegations of negligence, leaving the cause of the accident to pure speculation?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of negligence when the evidence presents only a speculative possibility of how the accident occurred, without any proof of the specific negligent acts alleged. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent by (1) failing to set the hand brake, (2) failing to engage the transmission, and (3) failing to maintain adequate brakes. However, the plaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever regarding the condition of the brakes, the position of the hand brake, or whether the car was in gear. Because the cause of the car making a 'clicking' sound and rolling backward is a matter of 'pure speculation,' the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied to infer negligence. Without any evidence to support the allegations, the defendant's motion for nonsuit was properly granted.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical importance of the plaintiff's burden of proof in a negligence action. It demonstrates that even in a tragic accident, liability cannot be assigned based on conjecture or possibilities alone. The court's refusal to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is significant, as it clarifies that the doctrine is not a substitute for evidence when the cause of the event is entirely unknown. This precedent reinforces that for res ipsa loquitur to apply, the circumstances must suggest that the event would not ordinarily occur without negligence, a condition not met when the cause is purely speculative.
Unlock the full brief for Warren v. Jeffries