Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp.
N.C. Ct. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Olds v. Olds N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2026Cadieu Tree Experts, Inc. v. Wiedner N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2020Vanfleet v. City of Hickory N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2020Value Health Sols. Inc. v. Pharm. Research Assocs. N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2020Al-Hassan v. Pebble Creek Parc, L.L.C. N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2019Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2019Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. United States, Inc. v. Link N.C.
- 2019Addison Whitney, LLC v. Cashion N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2019Gupta v. Eli Glob., LLC N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2019Bennett v. Bennett N.C. Bus. Ct.
Cites 3 cases
- Bogle v. Duke Power Co.
- Brewer v. Hatcher
- Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
J. HENRY FORD and wife, DORIS FORD v. PEACHES ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, THE CITY OF GREENSBORO, INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC., and DREW HENDERSON
Judges
- Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.
Attorneys
- Alexander, Ralston, Pell & Speckhard, by Stanley E. Speckhard, for plaintiff appellants.
- Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Thomas W. H. Alexander and James E. Gates, for defendant appellees Insurance Services Office, Inc. and Drew Henderson.
- Tuggle, Dug gins, Meschan & Elrod, P.A., by Kenneth R. Keller and Kenneth L. Jones, for defendant appellee Peaches Entertainment Corporation.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the court incorrectly concluded that the defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of this accident. We cannot agree.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is addressed to whether the facts alleged in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, give rise to a claim for relief on any theory. Brewer v. Hatcher, 52 N.C. App. 601, 279 S.E. 2d 69 (1981). For the plaintiffs’ complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss the facts alleged must demonstrate that the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries. “An essential element of causation is foreseeability, that which a person of ordinary prudence would reasonably have foreseen as the probable consequence of his acts. A person is not required to foresee all results but only those consequences which are reasonable.” Bogle v. Duke Power Company, 27 N.C. App. 318, 321, 219 S.E. 2d 308, 310 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 296, 222 S.E. 2d 695 (1976). This collision was not a reasonable result of the defendants’ negligently causing a fire truck to be summoned such that a person of ordinary prudence should have foreseen it. Their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injury and the trial court properly allowed the motions to dismiss.
We believe that Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 311 S.E. 2d 559 (1984) upon which the plaintiffs rely is distinguishable. That case held a jury could find that there was proximate cause when the defendant negligently installed a wheel on the automobile of the plaintiffs intestate and the wheel came off, causing the vehicle to stop on the highway so that it was struck and the plaintiffs intestate was killed. It is reasonably foreseeable that the loss of a wheel will cause a vehicle to stop on a highway where it is at risk from other traffic. It is not reasonably foreseeable that in the event of a false alarm a fire truck will cause an accident in responding to the alarm.
Affirmed.
Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.