Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp.

349 S.E.2d 82, 83 N.C. App. 155, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2673

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 21, 1986

Docket8618SC431

StatusPublished

Cited by79 cases

This text of 349 S.E.2d 82 (Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp., 349 S.E.2d 82, 83 N.C. App. 155, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2673 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the court incorrectly concluded that the defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of this accident. We cannot agree.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is addressed to whether the facts alleged in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, give rise to a claim for relief on any theory. Brewer v. Hatcher, 52 N.C. App. 601, 279 S.E. 2d 69 (1981). For the plaintiffs’ complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss the facts alleged must demonstrate that the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries. “An essential element of causation is foreseeability, that which a person of ordinary prudence would reasonably have foreseen as the probable consequence of his acts. A person is not required to foresee all results but only those consequences which are reasonable.” Bogle v. Duke Power Company, 27 N.C. App. 318, 321, 219 S.E. 2d 308, 310 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 296, 222 S.E. 2d 695 (1976). This collision was not a reasonable result of the defendants’ negligently causing a fire truck to be summoned such that a person of ordinary prudence should have foreseen it. Their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injury and the trial court properly allowed the motions to dismiss.

We believe that Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 311 S.E. 2d 559 (1984) upon which the plaintiffs rely is distinguishable. That case held a jury could find that there was proximate cause when the defendant negligently installed a *157 wheel on the automobile of the plaintiffs intestate and the wheel came off, causing the vehicle to stop on the highway so that it was struck and the plaintiffs intestate was killed. It is reasonably foreseeable that the loss of a wheel will cause a vehicle to stop on a highway where it is at risk from other traffic. It is not reasonably foreseeable that in the event of a false alarm a fire truck will cause an accident in responding to the alarm.

Affirmed.

Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WEBB, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the court incorrectly concluded that the defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of this accident. We cannot agree.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is addressed to whether the facts alleged in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, give rise to a claim for relief on any theory. Brewer v. Hatcher, 52 N.C. App. 601, 279 S.E. 2d 69 (1981). For the plaintiffs’ complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss the facts alleged must demonstrate that the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries. “An essential element of causation is foreseeability, that which a person of ordinary prudence would reasonably have foreseen as the probable consequence of his acts. A person is not required to foresee all results but only those consequences which are reasonable.” Bogle v. Duke Power Company, 27 N.C. App. 318, 321, 219 S.E. 2d 308, 310 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 296, 222 S.E. 2d 695 (1976). This collision was not a reasonable result of the defendants’ negligently causing a fire truck to be summoned such that a person of ordinary prudence should have foreseen it. Their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injury and the trial court properly allowed the motions to dismiss.

We believe that Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 311 S.E. 2d 559 (1984) upon which the plaintiffs rely is distinguishable. That case held a jury could find that there was proximate cause when the defendant negligently installed a *157 wheel on the automobile of the plaintiffs intestate and the wheel came off, causing the vehicle to stop on the highway so that it was struck and the plaintiffs intestate was killed. It is reasonably foreseeable that the loss of a wheel will cause a vehicle to stop on a highway where it is at risk from other traffic. It is not reasonably foreseeable that in the event of a false alarm a fire truck will cause an accident in responding to the alarm.

Affirmed.

Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 S.E.2d 82, 83 N.C. App. 155, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-peaches-entertainment-corp-ncctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack