foreseeability doctrine in North Carolina

2020In Lea Co., our 4 Cited with apparent approval in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n, 568 U.S. at 39 , 184 L.

2020In Lea Co., our 4 Cited with apparent approval in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n, 568 U.S. at 39 , 184 L.

2020Stein v. Asheville City Bd. Of Educ., 360 N.C. 321 , 328 n.5, 626 S.E.2d 263 , 268 n.5 (2006) (citation omitted) (just as with the element of duty, “[f]oreseeability is also an element of proximate cause[,]” but when the reviewing court “hold[s] no duty existed, [it is] not [required to] reach the question of proximate cause”).

2020Stein v. Asheville City Bd. Of Educ., 360 N.C. 321 , 328 n.5, 626 S.E.2d 263 , 268 n.5 (2006) (citation omitted) (just as with the element of duty, “[f]oreseeability is also an element of proximate cause[,]” but when the reviewing court “hold[s] no duty existed, [it is] not [required to] reach the question of proximate cause”).

1982It is not necessary that the whole sequence of events be foreseen, only that some injury would occur.” (Emphasis original) Id. at 512-513, 255 S.E. 2d at 320-321 .

1963State v. Cope, 204 N.C. 28 , 167 S.E. 456 .

1963State v. Cope, 204 N.C. 28 , 167 S.E. 456 .

1963In McNair, a new trial was awarded on the ground the court’s instruction “removes foreseeability as an essential element of proximate cause, and in substance told the jury that, in plaintiff’s action for damages allegedly resulting from the violation or violations of motor vehicle regulations, the doctrine of foreseeability did not apply.” In Whitley, a new trial was awarded on the ground “ (t) he court in its charge on proximate cause omitted to give the essential element of foreseeability of injury.” See Pittman v. Swanson, 255 N.C. 681, 685 , 122 S.E. 2d 814 .

1963In McNair, a new trial was awarded on the ground the court’s instruction “removes foreseeability as an essential element of proximate cause, and in substance told the jury that, in plaintiff’s action for damages allegedly resulting from the violation or violations of motor vehicle regulations, the doctrine of foreseeability did not apply.” In Whitley, a new trial was awarded on the ground “ (t) he court in its charge on proximate cause omitted to give the essential element of foreseeability of injury.” See Pittman v. Swanson, 255 N.C. 681, 685 , 122 S.E. 2d 814 .

1954J., speaking for a unanimous Court said in Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353, p. 359 , 82 S.E. 2d 331 : “When the action is for damages resulting from the violation of a motor vehicle regulation, does the doctrine of foreseeability apply?

1954J., speaking for a unanimous Court said in Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353, p. 359 , 82 S.E. 2d 331 : “When the action is for damages resulting from the violation of a motor vehicle regulation, does the doctrine of foreseeability apply?