Maharias v. WEATHERS BROTHERS MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Elm St. Gallery, Inc. v. Williams (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
- Holley v. Acts, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Adams v. METALS USA (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)
- Springs v. City of Charlotte (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
- Springs v. City of Charlotte (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)
- Faison v. Allen Canning Co. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2003)
- Hinson v. National Starch & Chemical Corp. (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)
- Snow v. Duke Power Co. (N.C. 1979)
- New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC v. Weaver Cooke Construction, LLC (In re New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina 2014)
- Snow v. Duke Power Co. (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
- Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive, Inc. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2007)
- Payne v. Bertlesmann (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2006)
- Johnson v. Piggly Wiggly of Pinetops, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
- Young v. Hickory Business Furniture (N.C. 2000)
- Poole v. Copland, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)
- Collins v. CALDWELL FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
- Phelps v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 1967)
- Zurich Insurance Co. v. Multi-Ply Corp. (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
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 nonsuit was entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, which tends to show the following particulars:
Plaintiff is the owner of the Quonset Hut Restaurant located in Charlotte. Defendant owns a warehouse in which it stores and refinishes used furniture. The warehouse is about 4 feet south and to the rear of the restaurant. About 10:00 P.M. on 9 June 1961 a fire started in a room in the northwest corner of the warehouse and spread to other parts of the warehouse and to plaintiff’s establishment, causing fire, water and smoke damage to plaintiff’s place of business and its contents. The room in which the fire originated had been used by defendant as a location for polishing furniture. Most of the merchandise in this room was destroyed by the fire. After the fire had been extinguished, Mr. Black, the Assistant Fire Chief, inspected the room and found an overturned metal cabinet, evidence of burned rags, and about a half-bushel of charred rags piled in a corner. There was some type of furniture polish on the rags. Mr. Black stated that, in his opinion, the pile of rags “could have caused spontaneous combustion.” On cross-examination he stated that he didn’t know where the rags were before the fire and that it was “possible that this fire could have happened from any one of a number of causes.”
*768 Plaintiff alleges that his loss was proximately caused by the negligence of defendant in permitting a pile of rags covered by highly inflammable fluid to accumulate, and that the fire resulted from spontaneous combustion of the pile of rags.
Nonsuit was proper. The evidence raised a mere conjecture, surmise and speculation as to the cause of the fire. A cause of action must be based on something more than a guess.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.