Norwood v. Works

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Norwood v. Works

206 S.E.2d 340, 22 N.C. App. 288, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2303

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

DocketNo. 743DC494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 S.E.2d 340 (Norwood v. Works) 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

Norwood v. Works, 206 S.E.2d 340, 22 N.C. App. 288, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2303 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows that the possession of the automobile in question by the defendant was that of bailee, under a bailment for the mutual benefit of the bailor and the bailee. The duty of the bailee under those circumstances is to exercise due care, and its liability depends “on the presence or absence of ordinary negligence.” The evidence of the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, and it was error to sustain the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict and dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

This case is controlled by Insurance Co. v. Motors, Inc., 240 N.C. 183, 81 S.E. 2d 416 (1954), where it is stated:

“A prima facie case of actionable negligence, requiring submission of the issue to the jury, is made when the bailor offers evidence tending to show that the property was delivered to the bailee; that the bailee accepted it and thereafter had possession and control of it; and that the bailee failed to return the property or returned it in a damaged condition....”

Reversed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows that the possession of the automobile in question by the defendant was that of bailee, under a bailment for the mutual benefit of the bailor and the bailee. The duty of the bailee under those circumstances is to exercise due care, and its liability depends “on the presence or absence of ordinary negligence.” The evidence of the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, and it was error to sustain the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict and dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

This case is controlled by Insurance Co. v. Motors, Inc., 240 N.C. 183, 81 S.E. 2d 416 (1954), where it is stated:

“A prima facie case of actionable negligence, requiring submission of the issue to the jury, is made when the bailor offers evidence tending to show that the property was delivered to the bailee; that the bailee accepted it and thereafter had possession and control of it; and that the bailee failed to return the property or returned it in a damaged condition....”

Reversed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 S.E.2d 340, 22 N.C. App. 288, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwood-v-works-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack