Kaminsky v. Sebile

8 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. West

    189 N.C. App. 189 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that because evidence failed to show the defendants gave consent to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, summary judgment for the defendants in negligent entrustment action was proper

    Where a party “had no control over the previous litigation and nothing in the record indicates that [the party's] interests were legally represented in the previous trial, there can be no privity." Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C.App. 71, 81, 535 S.E.2d 109, 116 (2000) (citing Countyof Rutherford ex rel. Hedrick v. Whitener, 100 N.C.App. 70, 76, 394 S.E.2d 263, 266 (1990) ). An accident may cause damage or injury to more than one person.

  2. Hairston v. Harward

    371 N.C. 647 (N.C. 2018)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that the North Carolina Supreme Court has treated the collateral source rule as a substantive rule of law concerning damages

    ation was one of the factors that North Carolina appellate courts have considered in determining that other payment sources were collateral for purposes of the collateral source rule. See Cates , 321 N.C. at 6, 361 S.E.2d at 738 (justifying its holding that Medicaid and other public benefit payments were a collateral source based, in part, upon the fact that N.C.G.S. § 108A-57 "entitles the state to full reimbursement for any Medicaid payments made on a plaintiff's behalf in the event the plaintiff recovers an award for damages" and prevents "any ‘windfall profit’ for the plaintiff"); see also Lunsford , 367 N.C. at 628, 766 S.E.2d at 304 (stating that, "given the General Assembly's provision of subrogation and reimbursement rights for the financial protection of insurers, we cannot agree with Farm Bureau's argument that the trial court's order resulted in a ‘windfall’ for Lunsford" in that "Farm Bureau could have preserved its subrogation rights by advancing its UIM policy limits"); Kaminsky v. Sebile , 140 N.C. App. 71, 80, 535 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2000) (noting that, "[u]nder Cates , if a plaintiff recovers for the past Medicaid payments he or she received and the state fails to seek reimbursement, the plaintiff would not then be required to return the money to the defendant-tortfeasor" and that, "[s]imilarly, defendant here should not receive a windfall because the government abandoned its right under the [Federal Medical Care Recovery Act]"). Had Erie refrained from waiving its subrogation rights and attempted to assert those rights against defendant, the same protection against a windfall recovery would exist in this case.

  3. Aman v. Nicholson

    885 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Barksdale , 181 N.C. 621, 625, 107 S.E. 505, 507 (1921) ); see alsoKaminsky v. Sebile , 140 N.C. App. 71, 76, 535 S.E.2d 109, 112–13 (2000). Griffith v. North Carolina Dept. of Correction , 210 N.C. App. 544, 559, 709 S.E.2d 412, 423 (2011)

  4. Griffith v. N. C. Dept. of Cor.

    210 N.C. App. 544 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that "[w]hen a [trial court's] oral order is not reduced to writing, it is non-existent and thus cannot support an appeal" (alteration in original)

    However, if a literal reading of the statutory language "yields absurd results . . . or contravenes clearly expressed legislative intent, `the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.'" Id. (quoting State v. Barksdale, 181 N.C. 621, 625, 107 S.E. 505, 507 (1921)); see also Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C. App. 71, 76, 535 S.E.2d 109, 112-13 (2000). Further,

  5. Gregory v. Penland

    179 N.C. App. 505 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Kayler v. Gallimore, 269 N.C. 405, 408, 152 S.E.2d 518, 521 (1967). Indeed, in Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C. App. 71, 81, 535 S.E.2d 109, 115-16 (2000), this Court held that no privity existed for res judicata purposes between a member of the military and the United States Army. Moreover, our Supreme Court has held:

  6. Gregory v. Penland

    634 S.E.2d 625 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 7 times

    Kayler v. Gallimore, 269 N.C. 405, 408, 152 S.E.2d 518, 521 (1967). Indeed, in Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C. App. 71, 81, 535 S.E.2d 109, 115-16 (2000), this Court held that no privity existed for res judicata purposes between a member of the military and the United States Army. Moreover, our Supreme Court has held:

  7. Wilson v. Burch Farms

    176 N.C. App. 629 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Finding that “the body of defendant's final argument fails to contain citations of the authorities upon which the [defendant] relies” and deeming the argument abandoned

    The purpose of the collateral source rule is to " 'exclude[] evidence of payments made to the plaintiff by sources other than the defendant when this evidence is offered for the purpose of diminishing the defendant tortfeasor's liability to the injured plaintiff.' " Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C.App. 71, 77, 535 S.E.2d 109, 113 (2000) (quoting Badgett v. Davis, 104 N.C.App. 760, 764, 411 S.E.2d 200, 203 (1991)). "The policy behind the rule is to prevent a tortfeasor from 'reduc[ing] his own liability for damages by the amount of compensation the injured party receives from an independent source.'

  8. Erler v. Aon Risks Services, Inc. of Carolinas

    141 N.C. App. 312 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Misleading comments limited to plaintiffs insufficient evidence of a practice

    Claim preclusion only arises in actions between the same parties or those "so identified in interest as to represent the same legal right. Privity is not established by the mere presence of a similar interest in a claim, nor by the fact that the previous adjudication may affect the subsequent party's liability." Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C. App. 71, 81, 535 S.E.2d 109, 115-116 (2000). In the case at bar, defendants have different interests than those of FEMA. Plaintiffs' claim in the federal action was dependent on the lower floor being classified as other than a "basement.