Court Opinion

ID: 9588449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:34:34.08945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:58.914812
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Hedrick
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that portion of the majority opinion that reverses the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for defendant. I dissent, however, from that portion of the decision that remands the cause to the superior court for entry of judgment on the verdict.
Without citing any authority, the majority assumes that this motion for a new trial under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(c) is the same as a motion for a new trial pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(8). I am not convinced that this is a valid assumption. In my opinion, the majority is being too technical in order to require the trial court to enter a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.
*383An error of law appears on the face of the record in this case. The first issue submitted to the jury, “Did the plaintiffs suffer loss as a result of John Howe Insurance Agency Inc.’s failure to procure insurance for the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Barnett:,” permitted the jury to find that defendant was liable in damages without determining whether plaintiffs’ damage was proximately caused by any negligence on the part of defendant. Although the court instructed the jury as to negligence, the answer to the issue did not resolve the question as to any negligence on the part of defendant.
As was done in In re Will of Herring, 19 N.C. App. 357, 198 S.E. 2d 737 (1973) and Bryant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 313 N.C. 362, 329 S.E. 2d 333 (1985), I would vote to order a new trial in this case to prevent a manifest injustice, and to obviate the necessity of another appeal from the judgment which the majority now orders entered on the verdict. I vote to reverse judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict and to remand for a new trial on all issues.