Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

238 N.C. 448

78 S.E.2d 170

Hart v. Curry

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 21, 1953

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1953-10-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“All that the plaintiff is required to prove on the question of for-seeability, in determining proximate cause, is that in the exercise of reasonable care, the defendant might have foreseen that some injury would result from his act or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co., 99 N.C. App. 1 - Johnson v. Skinner

““So, the court charges you that it is generally held that in order to warrant you members of the jury in finding that the negligence of the defendants was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the defendants’ negligent act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of attending circumstances.” (Emphasis added.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Johnson v. Lamb

Relies on Hall v. Coble Dairies, Inc. · Drum v. Miller · Lee v. Carolina Upholstery Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-10-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co. (1984), Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va. (2013)

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

1001953196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Denny, J.

¶1 The plaintiff assigns as error the following portion of the charge to the jury: “For it to be said that the defendant’s negligence was *449 tbe proximate cause of tbe death of plaintiff’s intestate, it must be shown that tbe death of plaintiff’s intestate was tbe natural and probable result of tbe defendant’s negligence, and that it ought to have been foreseen, in tbe light of all of tbe surrounding facts and circumstances.”

¶2 This instruction is not in accord with our decisions on tbe question of foreseeability. Tbe test of foreseeability does not require that tbe negligent person should have been able to foresee tbe injury in the precise form in which it actually occurred, or to anticipate tbe particular consequences which actually flowed from bis act or omission. 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, section 62, page 713.

¶3 All that tbe plaintiff is required to prove on tbe question of foreseeability, in determining proximate cause, is that in “tbe exercise of reasonable care, tbe defendant might have foreseen that some injury would result from bis act or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected.” 21 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2nd Ed.), page 487, quoted with approval in Drum v. Miller, 135 N.C. 204 (p. 215), 47 S.E. 421, 65 L.R.A. 890, 102 Am. St. Rep. 528; Hall v. Coble Dairies, 234 N.C. 206, 67 S.E. 2d 63; McIntyre v. Elevator Co., 230 N.C. 539, 54 S.E. 2d 45; Lee v. Upholstery Co., 227 N.C. 88, 40 S.E. 2d 688.

¶4 In Drum v. Miller, supra, tbe court instructed tbe jury that before they could find for tbe plaintiff they “were required to find that tbe defendant was at tbe time able to foresee, by tbe exercise of ordinary care, not only that injury would result but that tbe particular injury which was received by tbe plaintiff would be tbe natural and probable consequence of bis act.” This instruction was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to tbe plaintiff.

¶5 Likewise, in tbe instant case, tbe assignment of error must be sustained. Tbe plaintiff is entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.

¶6 New trial.

/238/nc/448 · .json · Public domain