Case Name: CARLTON BRUCE PRIEST v. VERNON LEE THOMPSON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1961-05-10
Citations: 254 N.C. 673
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARLTON BRUCE PRIEST v. VERNON LEE THOMPSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 254
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
CARLTON BRUCE PRIEST v. VERNON LEE THOMPSON.
(Filed 10 May, 1961.)
Negligence § 7—
Nonsuit held proper in this action to recover for injuries resulting when plaintiff was struck by the blade of the fan which broke off and struck plaintiff while he was looking under the hood of defendant’s car to locate mechanical trouble as defendant, after having accelerated the engine, turned off the switch, since such result was not reasonably foreseeable.
Appeal by plaintiff from Williams, J. November, 1960 Term, BladeN Superior Court.
Civil action to recover for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s actionable negligence.
While the plaintiff, the defendant, and three others were on their way from their homes in Bladen County to their work on a construction job in Greensboro, and while it was yet dark, a noise developed under the hood of the defendant’s Chevrolet in which all were riding. The defendant and one of the passengers, by the aid of a flashlight, attempted to locate the trouble, having raised the hood for that purpose. During their examination the plaintiff, who was a mechanic, moved under the wheel and accelerated the engine by pressing on the gas feed. Thereupon, the plaintiff got out of the vehicle and by the use of the light, attempted to find the cause of the trouble. In the meantime, the defendant got back under the wheel, accelerated the engine, and then cut off the switch. Immediately, one of the blades of the fan broke off and struck the plaintiff, putting out one eye and inflicting serious head and some brain injury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court entered judgment of compulsory nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.
Frank T. Grady, for plaintiff, appellant.
Anderson, Nimocks & Broadfoot, for defendant, appellee.

Opinion:
PeR Curiam.
The plaintiff's evidence disclosed he was the only mechanic in the party. While the defendant examined the engine the plaintiff accelerated it. The two changed places. The mechanic was in the act of making the examination and the owner, back under the wheel, accelerated the engine. As the switch was cut off, one of the blades separated from the hub of the fan, striking the plaintiff and causing his injury. The evidence does not disclose how or by what means either party could reasonably foresee such injurious consequences. Hence the judgment of nonsuit was proper and is
Affirmed.