# Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · February 5, 1979 · 296 N.C. 467

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9605215

## Case

- **Full name:** Floyd Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 5, 1979
- **Citations:** 296 N.C. 467; 251 S.E.2d 419; 1979 N.C. LEXIS 1186
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Copeland
- **Judges:** Huskins, Copeland, Exum
- **Cited by:** 155 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9605215

## Opinion text

Justice Copeland
dissenting.
In his complaint the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the bales of fiber were negligently loaded by Monsanto Company. He claimed that other companies loaded similar bales with the length running with the length of the trailer whereas the shipment in question was loaded with the length of some of the bales running with the width of the trailer. When loaded this unusual way, plaintiff claimed “the stacks of bales were unstable and would tumble over.”
William Boyd had been employed by Fieldcrest Mills for twenty-four years. His job primarily entailed spotting and unloading tractor-trailers, and he received all the shipments coming to Fieldcrest Mills on the day shift. He testified by deposition that “[i]n my experience the only carrier loading bales in the manner that these bales in the May 5, 1975 shipment from Monsanto were loaded was Monsanto.”
Considering the length of time Mr. Boyd had been dealing with such shipments, surely his testimony is evidence that the bales in question were loaded in a manner contrary to ordinary custom and usage. Although deviation from custom is not controlling, it constitutes some evidence of negligence. See Woodall Flying Service, Inc. v. Thomas, 27 N.C. App. 107 , 218 S.E. 2d 203 *475 (1975). See also W. PROSSER, TORTS § 33 (4th ed. 1971); 57 Am. Jur. Negligence §§ 77 et seq. (1971) and cases cited therein.
The defendants moved for summary judgment in this case; therefore, the burden is on them to show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that they are not negligent as a matter of law. They did not meet this burden.
The testimony of Mr. Boyd constituted some evidence of the defendants’ negligence. They brought forth no evidence at all that the unusual method used in loading this shipment of heavy bales was reasonably safe. Thus, defendants did not meet their initial burden. If such evidence had been presented, perhaps the plaintiff would then have had to come forth with evidence to the contrary in order to show that there was a genuine issue for trial. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants was improper in this case. For this reason, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Justice EXUM joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9605215. Public record. Not legal advice.