Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Howie v. Walshgreen2 sentences2009Normally, in such actions, both the standard of care and its breach must be established by expert testimony.” Previously, this Court has held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies in “ ‘situations where the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury by their very nature raise a presumption of negligence on the part of [a] defendant.’ ” Howie, 168 N.C. 2009This Court has determined that in medical malpractice cases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor should be “restrictive [ly]” applied, because the “ ‘average juror [is] unfit to determine whether [a] plaintiffs injury would rarely occur in the absence of negligence[.]’ ” Howie v. Walsh, 168 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Tri-Arc Food Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2006The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor “permits negligence to be inferred from the physical cause of an accident, without the aid of circumstances pointing to the responsible human cause” Harris v. Tri-Arc Food Systems, Inc., 165 N.C. 2006The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor “permits negligence to be inferred from the physical cause of an accident, without the aid of circumstances pointing to the responsible human cause” Harris v. Tri-Arc Food Systems, Inc., 165 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Diehl v. Koffergreen2 sentences2001Diehl v. Koffer, 140 N.C.App. 375, 378 , 536 S.E.2d 359, 362 (2000). 2001Diehl v. Koffer, 140 N.C.App. 375, 378 , 536 S.E.2d 359, 362 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bluitt v. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr.
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, because “both the standard of care and its breach must be established by expert testimony[,]” Bluitt, 259 N.C. App. at 6 , 814 S.E.2d at 481 , we agree that a res ipsa loquitor claim is inappropriate in this case and affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s res ipsa loquitor claim. 2022Therefore, because “both the standard of care and its breach must be established by expert testimony[,]” Bluitt, 259 N.C. App. at 6 , 814 S.E.2d at 481 , we agree that a res ipsa loquitor claim is inappropriate in this case and affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s res ipsa loquitor claim. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Parks v. Perry
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 207, 314 S.E.2d at 290 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Williams v. 100 Block Associates, Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2006App. 495, 501 , 598 S.E.2d 644, 648 (2004) (quoting Williams v. 100 Block Assoc., 132 N.C. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Madden v. Carolina Door Controls, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 59 , 449 S.E.2d at 771 . 2000Id. at 59 , 449 S.E.2d at 771 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Weston v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1959Weston v. Lumber Co., 168 N.C. 98 , 83 S.E. 693 . 1959Weston v. Lumber Co., 168 N.C. 98 , 83 S.E. 693 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.