Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp.
Cases that cite this one
77 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Lee Cycle Center, Inc. v. Wilson Cycle Center, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
- Russell v. Adams (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)
- Gath v. St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
- Fiske v. Kieffer (North Carolina Business Court 2016)
- Al-Hassan v. Pebble Creek Parc, L.L.C. (North Carolina Business Court 2020)
- Vanfleet v. City of Hickory (North Carolina Business Court 2020)
- Value Health Sols. Inc. v. Pharm. Research Assocs. (North Carolina Business Court 2020)
- Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. United States, Inc. v. Link (N.C. 2019)
- Addison Whitney, LLC v. Cashion (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Kelley v. Charlotte Radiology, P.A. (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Bennett v. Bennett (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Gupta v. Eli Glob., LLC (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Value Health Sols. Inc. v. Pharm. Research Assocs., Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
- Potts v. Steel Tube, Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Bucci v. Burns (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Brewster v. Powell Bail Bonding, Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Llg-Nrmh, LLC v. N. Riverfront Marina & Hotel, Lllp (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Islet Scis., Inc. v. Brighthaven Ventures, LLC (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
- SEC. Camera Warehouse, Inc. v. Bowman (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
- Usconnect, LLC v. Sprout Retail, Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
- Addison Whitney, LLC v. Cashion (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
- Lendingtree, LLC v. Intercontinental Capital Grp., Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
- Brown v. Secor (North Carolina Business Court 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the court incorrectly concluded that the defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of this accident. We cannot agree.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is addressed to whether the facts alleged in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, give rise to a claim for relief on any theory. Brewer v. Hatcher, 52 N.C. App. 601, 279 S.E. 2d 69 (1981). For the plaintiffs’ complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss the facts alleged must demonstrate that the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries. “An essential element of causation is foreseeability, that which a person of ordinary prudence would reasonably have foreseen as the probable consequence of his acts. A person is not required to foresee all results but only those consequences which are reasonable.” Bogle v. Duke Power Company, 27 N.C. App. 318, 321, 219 S.E. 2d 308, 310 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 296, 222 S.E. 2d 695 (1976). This collision was not a reasonable result of the defendants’ negligently causing a fire truck to be summoned such that a person of ordinary prudence should have foreseen it. Their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injury and the trial court properly allowed the motions to dismiss.
We believe that Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 311 S.E. 2d 559 (1984) upon which the plaintiffs rely is distinguishable. That case held a jury could find that there was proximate cause when the defendant negligently installed a *157 wheel on the automobile of the plaintiffs intestate and the wheel came off, causing the vehicle to stop on the highway so that it was struck and the plaintiffs intestate was killed. It is reasonably foreseeable that the loss of a wheel will cause a vehicle to stop on a highway where it is at risk from other traffic. It is not reasonably foreseeable that in the event of a false alarm a fire truck will cause an accident in responding to the alarm.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.