New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Gray

116 S.E.2d 146, 253 N.C. 60, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 448
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 21, 1960·No. 23·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the automobile was defective in any respect, the record fails to disclose any evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to show what the defect consisted of. No causal connection between the excessive heating and the fire is made to appear. Furthermore, there is no contention that heat or fumes had ever been emitted while the car was not in operation. Recovery may not be predicated on conjecture. No evidence has been adduced from which the cause of the fire may be reasonably inferred.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Gray, 116 S.E.2d 146, 253 N.C. 60, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 448 (N.C. 1960).

116 S.E.2d 146 (New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bulliner v. General Motors Corp.
54 F.R.D. 479 (E.D. North Carolina, 1971)
Brown v. Ford Motor Company
287 F. Supp. 906 (D. South Carolina, 1968)