Sims v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Sims v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc.

217 S.E.2d 737, 27 N.C. App. 25, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1738

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 3, 1975

Docket7510SC288

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 217 S.E.2d 737 (Sims v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, 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

Sims v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 217 S.E.2d 737, 27 N.C. App. 25, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1738 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MARTIN, Judge.

Instead of proceeding against defendants for breach of contract or warranty, plaintiffs seek to recover in tort alleging that defendants negligently constructed and installed their mobile home.

*28 Negligent performance of a contract may constitute a tort as well as a breach of contract, the theory being that accompanying every contract is a common-law duty to perform with ordinary care the thing agreed to be done. Pinnix v. Toomey, 242 N.C. 858, 87 S.E. 2d 893 (1955). See also Insurance Co. v. Sprinkler Co., 266 N.C. 134, 146 S.E. 2d 53 (1966) and Toone v. Adams, 262 N.C. 403, 137 S.E. 2d 132 (1964).

The present case is unusual in that plaintiffs’ injuries are confined to the subject matter of the sales contract — i.e. the mobile home. There has been no injury to the person or any property of plaintiffs other than the mobile home which is, according to plaintiffs’ evidence, worth much less than what they paid for it. Nor does it appear that the mobile home, as constructed and installed, is capable of causing any harm to persons or other property as is ordinarily found in negligence actions. The manufacturer’s liability in tort for mere loss on the bargain has been a troublesome question. Prosser, Handbook of The Law of Torts, § 101, pp. 665-7 (4th ed. 1971). Here, however, the manufacturer (Virginia) assumed responsibility for more than the safety of its product. Virginia undertook to construct the mobile home in accordance with plaintiffs’ specifications. In addition, Virginia furnished the foundation plans for the mobile home and undertook to install the home on said foundation.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Virginia in the construction and installation of the mobile home which would require submission of the issue to the jury.

As for Oakwood, we affirm the directed verdict in its favor. There is no evidence of negligence on its part, nor do we find any relationship between Oakwood and Virginia as would render Oakwood answerable for the negligence of Virginia.

Reversed in part.

Affirmed in part.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.

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

MARTIN, Judge.

Instead of proceeding against defendants for breach of contract or warranty, plaintiffs seek to recover in tort alleging that defendants negligently constructed and installed their mobile home.

*28 Negligent performance of a contract may constitute a tort as well as a breach of contract, the theory being that accompanying every contract is a common-law duty to perform with ordinary care the thing agreed to be done. Pinnix v. Toomey, 242 N.C. 858, 87 S.E. 2d 893 (1955). See also Insurance Co. v. Sprinkler Co., 266 N.C. 134, 146 S.E. 2d 53 (1966) and Toone v. Adams, 262 N.C. 403, 137 S.E. 2d 132 (1964).

The present case is unusual in that plaintiffs’ injuries are confined to the subject matter of the sales contract — i.e. the mobile home. There has been no injury to the person or any property of plaintiffs other than the mobile home which is, according to plaintiffs’ evidence, worth much less than what they paid for it. Nor does it appear that the mobile home, as constructed and installed, is capable of causing any harm to persons or other property as is ordinarily found in negligence actions. The manufacturer’s liability in tort for mere loss on the bargain has been a troublesome question. Prosser, Handbook of The Law of Torts, § 101, pp. 665-7 (4th ed. 1971). Here, however, the manufacturer (Virginia) assumed responsibility for more than the safety of its product. Virginia undertook to construct the mobile home in accordance with plaintiffs’ specifications. In addition, Virginia furnished the foundation plans for the mobile home and undertook to install the home on said foundation.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Virginia in the construction and installation of the mobile home which would require submission of the issue to the jury.

As for Oakwood, we affirm the directed verdict in its favor. There is no evidence of negligence on its part, nor do we find any relationship between Oakwood and Virginia as would render Oakwood answerable for the negligence of Virginia.

Reversed in part.

Affirmed in part.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 S.E.2d 737, 27 N.C. App. 25, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-oakwood-mobile-homes-inc-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack