Court Opinion

ID: 9855347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:23:05.696722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:45.401696
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
dissenting.
Assuming that the “completed and accepted work” doctrine should remain valid in North Carolina1 and further, that it applies in this case, I believe that the plaintiff forecasted evidence sufficient to overcome summary judgment. Plaintiff’s evidence establishes an issue of fact as to whether the contractor should be liable under an exception to the “completed and accepted work” doctrine. For while, as the majority points out, there is testimony to the contrary, when *771viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Don Moore, establishes an issue of fact as to whether the defendant turned over work that was imminently dangerous. He testified that the road as constructed deviated from DOT’s plans; that the road created a “hazardous hydroplaning condition”; and that it should have been obvious that the transition in the curve as constructed by defendant did not occur as designed by the DOT. Moreover, plaintiff’s evidence showed that at least three other people had “hydroplaned” in the area. I would allow a trial of this case.

. See Thrift v. Food Lion, 111 N.C. App. 758, 766, 433 S.E.2d 481, 486 n.1 (1993) (Greene, J. dissenting) dissent adopted by our Supreme Court in Thrift v. Food Lion, 336 N.C. 309, 442 S.E.2d 504 (1994) (“Many courts have completely abandoned the ‘completed and accepted’ rule, even in the context of construction contracts.”)