Court Opinion

ID: 9583899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:59.892283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:34.890922
License: Public Domain

Judge Martin, John C.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that portion of the majority opinion which affirms the entry of a directed verdict in defendant’s favor with respect to Carolyn Smith’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the entry of a directed verdict as to Annie Swann’s claim for negligence.
One asserting a claim for negligence has the burden of proving that defendant breached a duty of care owed to plaintiff and that such breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Hubbard v. Oil Co., 268 N.C. 489, 151 S.E.2d 71 (1966). “Just as negligence cannot be inferred from the mere fact of injury, the negligence of one’s caretaker cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the person in [his] care suffers an accidental injury.” Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 115, 122, 457 S.E.2d 875, 880, disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 421, 461 S.E.2d 761 (1995). The evidence must be sufficient to raise more than speculation, guess, or mere possibility and, if it fails to do so, directed verdict is proper. See Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747, 107 S.E.2d 757 (1959). “To hold that evidence that a defendant could *476have been negligent is sufficient to go to a jury, in the absence of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that such a defendant actually was negligent is to allow the jury to indulge in speculation and guesswork.” Jenkins v. Starrett Corp., 13 N.C. App. 437, 444, 186 S.E.2d 198, 203 (1972) (emphasis original) (citations omitted). The majority’s holding permits the jury to engage in just the sort of “speculation and guesswork” which has been disapproved by long-established precedent.
The majority relies upon evidence that Mrs. Swann had fallen on two previous occasions during the preceding year, that the family had asked that she be restrained, and that her physician had authorized her restraint “as needed” as “a sufficient basis upon which the jury could have found that the defendants were negligent in not having Mrs. Swann restrained at the time of her fall.” Following the majority’s logic, defendants would have been negligent if they had not restrained Mrs. Swann at all times, which would have been contrary to her physician’s orders and to his wishes as expressed during his testimony.
In my view, the evidence, even considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, contained no showing whatsoever that on the date of Mrs. Swann’s injury, defendants had reason to know that she required restraint for her own safety and, with such knowledge, failed to restrain her. In any event, the evidence tended to show that Mrs. Swann’s restraint was found approximately two feet from her, giving rise to a strong inference that she had, in fact, been restrained prior to her fall and had managed to free herself, a frequent problem with the elderly according to the testimony of Mrs. Swann’s physician.
In summary, plaintiffs presented essentially no evidence other than the fact that Mrs. Swann fell and was injured while in defendants’ care. Defendants’ negligence may not be inferred from that showing. Therefore, I vote to affirm the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict in favor of defendants as to all claims.