Sasser Ex Rel. Sasser v. Beck

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Sasser Ex Rel. Sasser v. Beck

308 S.E.2d 722, 65 N.C. App. 170, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3403

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 15, 1983

Docket8230SC1154

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 308 S.E.2d 722 (Sasser Ex Rel. Sasser v. Beck) 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

Sasser Ex Rel. Sasser v. Beck, 308 S.E.2d 722, 65 N.C. App. 170, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3403 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

WHICHARD, Judge.

To overcome the motion for directed verdict plaintiff was “required to offer evidence sufficient to establish, beyond mere speculation or conjecture, every essential element of negligence.” Oliver v. Royall, 36 N.C. App. 239, 242, 243 S.E. 2d 436, 439 (1978). The basic elements of negligence are a duty owed by defendants to plaintiff and nonperformance of that duty, proximately causing injury and damage. See Spake v. Pearlman, 222 N.C. 62, 65, 21 S.E. 2d 881, 883 (1942); W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971).

The parties stipulated that plaintiff suffered injuries, but on the evidence presented the jury could only speculate as to their cause. See Justice v. Prescott, 258 N.C. 781, 129 S.E. 2d 479 (1963); Dahn v. Perkins, 228 N.C. 727, 46 S.E. 2d 854 (1948); Adams v. Enka Corp., 202 N.C. 767, 164 S.E. 367 (1932). Plaintiff offered no evidence showing that he sustained his injuries by reason of some defect in the pool, that additional safety precautions would have prevented the injuries, or that their absence proximately caused the accident. See Adams v. Enka Corp., supra. He presented no evidence that additional safety measures were re *172 quired by statute or ordinance. See Bell v. Page, 2 N.C. App. 132, 162 S.E. 2d 693 (1968). He presented no medical evidence concerning the cause of his injuries.

The record indicates that plaintiffs brother accompanied him and apparently remained at the pool through the brief period preceding the discovery of plaintiff at the bottom of the pool. The brother did not testify, however.

In sum, “[ejvidence of actionable negligence is lacking.” Justice, supra, 258 N.C. at 782, 129 S.E. 2d at 480. The evidence shows that an unfortunate injury occurred, but leaves to pure speculation the question of the cause. Under these circumstances, pursuant to prior decisions of our appellate courts, a directed verdict for defendants was appropriate. Justice v. Prescott, supra; Hahn v. Perkins, supra; Adams v. Enka Corp., supra, Oliver v. Royall, supra; cf. Corda v. Brook Valley Enterprises, Inc., 63 N.C. App. 653, 306 S.E. 2d 173 (1983) (directed verdict in swimming pool death case reversed where plaintiff presented expert safety evidence, expert medical evidence on causation, and medical reports).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge VAUGHN and Judge PHILLIPS concur.

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

WHICHARD, Judge.

To overcome the motion for directed verdict plaintiff was “required to offer evidence sufficient to establish, beyond mere speculation or conjecture, every essential element of negligence.” Oliver v. Royall, 36 N.C. App. 239, 242, 243 S.E. 2d 436, 439 (1978). The basic elements of negligence are a duty owed by defendants to plaintiff and nonperformance of that duty, proximately causing injury and damage. See Spake v. Pearlman, 222 N.C. 62, 65, 21 S.E. 2d 881, 883 (1942); W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971).

The parties stipulated that plaintiff suffered injuries, but on the evidence presented the jury could only speculate as to their cause. See Justice v. Prescott, 258 N.C. 781, 129 S.E. 2d 479 (1963); Dahn v. Perkins, 228 N.C. 727, 46 S.E. 2d 854 (1948); Adams v. Enka Corp., 202 N.C. 767, 164 S.E. 367 (1932). Plaintiff offered no evidence showing that he sustained his injuries by reason of some defect in the pool, that additional safety precautions would have prevented the injuries, or that their absence proximately caused the accident. See Adams v. Enka Corp., supra. He presented no evidence that additional safety measures were re *172 quired by statute or ordinance. See Bell v. Page, 2 N.C. App. 132, 162 S.E. 2d 693 (1968). He presented no medical evidence concerning the cause of his injuries.

The record indicates that plaintiffs brother accompanied him and apparently remained at the pool through the brief period preceding the discovery of plaintiff at the bottom of the pool. The brother did not testify, however.

In sum, “[ejvidence of actionable negligence is lacking.” Justice, supra, 258 N.C. at 782, 129 S.E. 2d at 480. The evidence shows that an unfortunate injury occurred, but leaves to pure speculation the question of the cause. Under these circumstances, pursuant to prior decisions of our appellate courts, a directed verdict for defendants was appropriate. Justice v. Prescott, supra; Hahn v. Perkins, supra; Adams v. Enka Corp., supra, Oliver v. Royall, supra; cf. Corda v. Brook Valley Enterprises, Inc., 63 N.C. App. 653, 306 S.E. 2d 173 (1983) (directed verdict in swimming pool death case reversed where plaintiff presented expert safety evidence, expert medical evidence on causation, and medical reports).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge VAUGHN and Judge PHILLIPS concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 S.E.2d 722, 65 N.C. App. 170, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sasser-ex-rel-sasser-v-beck-ncctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack