Hairston V. Alexander Tank And Equipment Co.: Case Study

373 Words2 Pages
Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. 311 S.E.2d 559 (N.C. 1984) FACT -Plaintiff: Bettye Hairston (John Hairston’s wife) -Defendant: Haygood Lincoln-Mercury. Inc (Haygood) and Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. -After John Hairston purchased a new car from Haygood, the left rear wheel of his car came off. Since there were no places to park his car, he stopped his car in the far right lane. However, the truck crashed Hairston’s car and he was killed because he was standing between his car and van. The plaintiff claims that the wheel came off the vehicle because the lug nuts had not been tightened on the wheel studs. And the jury found both defendants negligent. Yet, the Trial court Judge granted Haygood’s motion for judgment and found that Alexander’s negligence was the proximate cause of…show more content…
ANALYSIS -The court of Appeals found out that Alexander was negligent because he failed to check the Hairston’s car which was on the road. The article states “These negligent acts of Alexander -- new and independent of any negligent acts of Haygood -- constitute the proximate cause of injury and the death of plaintiff's intestate, and the negligence of Haygood was shielded by the subsequent acts of negligence by Alexander." Therefore, the Alexander’s act of crashing the Hairston’s car considered to be a proximate cause of injury and death. CONCLUSION -The decision had reversed and remanded because of the entry of judgment in agreement with the jury’s

More about Hairston V. Alexander Tank And Equipment Co.: Case Study

Open Document