Court Opinion

ID: 9587526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:23:17.155084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:58.157919
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, J.,
dissenting.
Because plaintiffs failed to specifically rebut defendant’s expert testimony, I must respectfully dissent. I would affirm.
The majority is correct in stating that when a conflict in the forecasted evidence exists, there is a genuine issue of material fact that should be submitted to the jury for its determination. However, “ ‘[o]nce the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing [that an essential element of the opponent’s case is nonexistent], the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial.’ ” Wilkins v. Safran, 185 N.C. App. 668, 672, 649 S.E.2d 658, 661 (2007) (quoting Draughon v. Harnett County Bd. of Educ., 158 N.C. *226App. 208, 212, 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003) (quotations omitted), aff’d, 358 N.C. 131, 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (per curiam)). It is by this method that parties to a hearing on summary judgment establish that there is, or is not, a genuine issue of material fact.
Here, defendant provided expert testimony indicating that plaintiff could not prove the element of causation. Specifically, defendant provided an affidavit in which its expert concluded that in his opinion, “any work performed by [defendant] did not cause the basement flooding alleged by [plaintiffs] or the subsequent damage to [plaintiffs’ property.” This conclusion was based on several underlying expert opinions:
4. Any alterations of the ditch on the Plaintiffs’ property by the Defendant, Blythe Development Company, would not have substantively changed the surface water runoff on the property.
5. No work performed by the Defendant, Blythe Development Company, changed the surface water runoff at the rear of the Plaintiffs’ residence.
6. Pre-existing conditions at the back basement door of the Plaintiffs’ residence would have directed some surface water runoff towards the residence.
7. No work performed by the Defendant, Blythe Development Company, altered the pre-existing conditions at the back basement door of the Plaintiffs’ residence.
8. Except for the pre-existing conditions noted in Number 6, the general grading at the Plaintiffs’ property would be expected to direct surface water runoff away from the residence’s back basement door such that surface water runoff from the front yard of the residence would not be directed towards the back basement door.
9. Any work performed by the Defendant, Blythe Development Company, did not alter the general grading at the Plaintiffs’ property.
10. Whatever water was in the basement of the Plaintiffs’ residence on or about September 27, 2004 was caused by the preexisting conditions in the backyard of the Plaintiffs’ residence and/or a breach of the residence’s waterproofing and/or ground water perking up through the joints in the basement slab.
*227After having made this showing, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to “produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations,” rebutting defendant’s evidence.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed five affidavits — their own and those of family members. None of the affidavits forecast specific facts to rebut defendant’s expert opinions. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact requiring summary judgment be denied. Having failed to meet this burden, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor. Therefore, I would affirm.