Bosley v. Alexander

12 Citing cases

  1. Cook v. Turlington

    778 S.E.2d 475 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015)

    Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence We first address whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict as to plaintiff's contributory negligence. “ ‘Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of the plaintiff which joins, simultaneously or successively, with the negligence of the defendant ... to produce the injury of which the plaintiff complains.’ “ Seay v. Snyder, 181 N.C.App. 248, 251, 638 S.E.2d 584, 587 (2007) (quoting Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C.App. 470, 472, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1994)). “A defendant who asserts contributory negligence as a defense has the burden of proving it.”

  2. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Michael Weinig, Inc., 2003-4115 (2004)

    No. P.C. 2003-4115 (R.I. Super. May. 14, 2004)

    Unlike Rhode Island, North Carolina applies the doctrine of contributory negligence in tort cases. Bosley v. Alexander, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83, 114 N.C. App. 470, 471 (1994). In the Bosley case, the North Carolina Appellate Court explicitly stated, "The doctrine of contributory negligence, which is a creature of common law followed in this State since Morrison v. Cornelius, 63 N.C. 346 (1869), remains the law of this State until our Supreme Court overrules Morrison."

  3. Palacino v. Beech Mountain Resort, Inc.

    1:13cv334 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2015)

    North Carolina remains one of the few states that continues to recognize the doctrine of contributory negligence. Bosley v. Alexander, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994); Fox v. PGML, LLC, 744 S.E.2d 483, 486 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). As the North Carolina Court of Appeals explained in Bosley:

  4. Rieper v. Pearce

    690 S.E.2d 559 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)

    " Thompson v. Bradley, 142 N.C. App. 636, 640, 544 S.E.2d 258, 261 (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 532, 550 S.E.2d 506 (2001). If a plaintiff's own negligence contributed to her injuries in any manner, "she is precluded from recovery irrespective of the acts of others." Culler v. Hamlett, 148 N.C. App. 372, 378, 559 S.E.2d 195, 200 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C. App. 470, 471, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1994) (noting that the U.S. Supreme Court in Pope Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409, 98 L. Ed. 143, 150 (1953) "described contributory negligence as a `discredited doctrine which automatically destroys all claims of injured persons who have contributed to their injuries in any degree, however slight'"). Contributory negligence is the controlling doctrine in North Carolina.

  5. Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC

    186 N.C. App. 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that the voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the defendant Days Inn did not render the order of summary judgment as to the other defendant interlocutory because time “has expired for plaintiff to refile this claim against defendant Days Inn”; thus, “[t]he procedural posture of this case does not cause us to believe that counsel are manipulating the Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to appeal an order that should not be appealable”

    However, “[a] finding of contributory negligence is a bar to recovery from a defendant for acts of ordinary negligence." Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C.App. 470, 472, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83-84 (1994) .           Here, the trial court granted defendant's summary judgment motion as to contributory negligence and denied it as to actionable negligence.

  6. Seay v. Snyder

    181 N.C. App. 248 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 10 times
    In Seay, this Court held that a trooper's diagram of a collision was properly excluded by the trial court because the diagram improperly expressed a conclusion as to the point of impact based on the trooper's physical findings at the scene of the accident.

    Bosleyv. Alexander, 114 N.C.App. 470, 472, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1994) (quoting Jackson v. McBride, 270 N.C. 367, 372, 154 S.E.2d 468, 471 (1967) ). To establish contributory negligence, a defendant must demonstrate: “(1) a want of due care on the part of the plaintiff; and (2) a proximate connection between the plaintiff's negligence and the injury."

  7. Green v. Rouse

    116 N.C. App. 647 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 2 times
    Holding the trial court properly submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury where defendant produced evidence of plaintiff’s intoxication and stating "[t]he jury could properly consider such evidence while ascertaining whether plaintiff’s condition caused her to ‘operate [her] vehicle in a manner which was a proximate cause of the collision’ "

    Id. at 187, 176 S.E.2d at 794-95. In Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C. App. 470, 442 S.E.2d 82 (1994), Judge Wynn undertook an analysis of our State's doctrine of contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is "negligence on the part of the plaintiff which joins, simultaneously or successively, with the negligence of the defendant . . . to produce the injury of which the plaintiff complains."

  8. Fox v. PGML, LLC

    228 N.C. App. 28 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    In North Carolina, “[a] finding of contributory negligence is a bar to recovery from a defendant for acts of ordinary negligence.” Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C.App. 470, 472, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83–84 (1994). Summary judgment is rarely appropriate for contributory negligence issues.

  9. Jones v. Rochelle

    125 N.C. App. 82 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 10 times

    Although forty-six states have abandoned the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, contributory negligence continues to be the law of this State until our Supreme Court overrules it or the General Assembly adopts comparative negligence. Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C. App. 470, 471, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1994). It is therefore beyond this Court's authority to abandon the doctrine of contributory negligence. Corns, 112 N.C. App. at 237, 435 S.E.2d at 91.

  10. Bowden v. Bell

    116 N.C. App. 64 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 13 times
    Assuming arguendo it was error to exclude the evidence, such error was not prejudicial as there was other evidence stating the same proposition

    In fact, forty-six states have abandoned the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence. Bosley v. Alexander, 114 N.C. App. 470, 471, 442 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1994). In this state, in 1981, the Legislative Research Commission recommended to the General Assembly that it abolish the doctrines of contributory negligence and last clear chance by enacting the Commission's proposed statute on comparative fault.