Goode v. Tait, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Goode v. Tait, Inc.

243 S.E.2d 404, 36 N.C. App. 268, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2466

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 2, 1978

Docket7721SC582

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 243 S.E.2d 404 (Goode v. Tait, Inc.) 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

Goode v. Tait, Inc., 243 S.E.2d 404, 36 N.C. App. 268, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2466 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The judgment must be reversed. Rule 56(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part:

“The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

The rule requires that before summary judgment may be had, the materials filed must affirmatively show that not only *270 would the moving party be entitled to judgment from the evidence contained within the materials, but they must also show that there can be no other evidence from which a jury could reach a different conclusion as to a material fact. The rule has been stated to be that the materials must show there is no triable issue. Long v. Long, 15 N.C. App. 525, 190 S.E. 2d 415 (1972). Applying the rule to this case, the deposition of the plaintiff can be read to mean he did not know the cause of the accident. For this reason, there is no evidence of negligence as to the loading. After considering the deposition and the pleadings, however, there still could be a triable issue because there could be other evidence that the pumps and tanks were negligently stacked. Thus, the materials relied on by the defendant do not show there is not a triable issue of negligence.

We presume the trial court relied on the rule as stated in Haithcock v. Chimney Rock, 10 N.C. App. 696, 179 S.E. 2d 865 (1971) as follows: “[t]he test is whether the moving party, by affidavit, or otherwise, presents materials which would require a directed verdict in his favor if presented at trial”, and concluded that if the materials offered had been presented at a trial, a directed verdict would have been proper for defendant. In Haithcock, the plaintiff sued for injuries from a fall on the defendant’s premises. She stated on adverse examination that she could not tell what caused her to fall. The facts in that case were such that she was the only one in a position to know what caused the fall. For that reason, summary judgment was appropriate. In this case, there were others who might be able to tell how the pumps and tanks were stacked and for that reason, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

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

WEBB, Judge.

The judgment must be reversed. Rule 56(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part:

“The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

The rule requires that before summary judgment may be had, the materials filed must affirmatively show that not only *270 would the moving party be entitled to judgment from the evidence contained within the materials, but they must also show that there can be no other evidence from which a jury could reach a different conclusion as to a material fact. The rule has been stated to be that the materials must show there is no triable issue. Long v. Long, 15 N.C. App. 525, 190 S.E. 2d 415 (1972). Applying the rule to this case, the deposition of the plaintiff can be read to mean he did not know the cause of the accident. For this reason, there is no evidence of negligence as to the loading. After considering the deposition and the pleadings, however, there still could be a triable issue because there could be other evidence that the pumps and tanks were negligently stacked. Thus, the materials relied on by the defendant do not show there is not a triable issue of negligence.

We presume the trial court relied on the rule as stated in Haithcock v. Chimney Rock, 10 N.C. App. 696, 179 S.E. 2d 865 (1971) as follows: “[t]he test is whether the moving party, by affidavit, or otherwise, presents materials which would require a directed verdict in his favor if presented at trial”, and concluded that if the materials offered had been presented at a trial, a directed verdict would have been proper for defendant. In Haithcock, the plaintiff sued for injuries from a fall on the defendant’s premises. She stated on adverse examination that she could not tell what caused her to fall. The facts in that case were such that she was the only one in a position to know what caused the fall. For that reason, summary judgment was appropriate. In this case, there were others who might be able to tell how the pumps and tanks were stacked and for that reason, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.E.2d 404, 36 N.C. App. 268, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goode-v-tait-inc-ncctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack