Court Opinion

ID: 9808622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:44:24.774964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:12.142183
License: Public Domain

Barnhill, J.,
dissenting: This Court is committed to the view that when a plaintiff in eases such as this undertakes to establish negligence by proof of “other instances,” it must be made to appear that the “like products” contain harmful or deleterious substances, “were sold by the defendant at about the same time” and were manufactured “under sub*112stantially similar conditions.” Similar instances are allowed to be shown as evidence of probable like occurrences at tbe time of plaintiff’s injuries when accompanied by proof of substantially similar circumstances and reasonable proximity in time. Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305, 180 S. E., 582.
Plaintiff undertook to show only one other “similar instance.” The testimony in respect thereto is quoted in full in the majority opinion. This testimony (of witness Ball), is wholly devoid of any suggestion as to when defendant manufactured the tobacco purchased by him, or as to when the retailer from whom he purchased acquired it, or as to similarity of conditions of manufacture. These are essential prerequisites.
Nor does this evidence tend to show that the tobacco purchased by Ball contained harmful or deleterious matter. “What appeared to be a rat’s claw or a squirrel’s foot” is merely descriptive. Tickle v. Hobgood, 216 N. C., 221, 3 S. E. (2d), 362.
The witness did not testify that he was “repulsed with the idea of having had it in his mouth” or that he “threw it down to show his disgust and repulsion at the experience.” On the contrary, his testimony discloses his lack of knowledge of the real nature of the object found in the tobacco and his unconcern in respect thereto. He thought it was a piece of wood. It looked like a rat’s foot. In his opinion it was a rat’s foot. He didn’t pay much attention to it after he saw what it looked like, “I just throwed it down.”
Even if it be conceded that one other instance is sufficient to carry the case to the jury this evidence signally fails to establish the essentials of such other instance under the rule to which we have consistently adhered.
Corum v. Tobacco Co., 205 N. C., 213, 171 S. E., 78, is not in point. There it was made to appear that the tobacco which was the subject matter of the other instance was manufactured by defendant within two months of the time of the manufacture of the tobacco purchased by plaintiff and deleterious matter was found. The other cases cited in the majority opinion are similarly distinguishable.
In my opinion there was no evidence of negligent manufacture and the cause should have been dismissed as of nonsuit.
Stagy, C. J., and WiNBORNE, J., concur in dissent.