{
  "id": 8522464,
  "name": "PAUL M. SPILLMAN and wife, CONNIE SPILLMAN, Plaintiffs Appellees v. AMERICAN HOMES OF MOCKSVILLE, INC., Defendant Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spillman v. American Homes of Mocksville, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 9122DC802",
  "first_page": "63",
  "last_page": "65",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 63"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E.2d 347",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569891,
        8569997,
        8569967,
        8569939,
        8569912
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0511-01",
        "/nc/288/0511-05",
        "/nc/288/0511-04",
        "/nc/288/0511-03",
        "/nc/288/0511-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 S.E.2d 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "739-40"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549749
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 602",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2561393,
        2561378,
        2562195,
        2562245
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0629-04",
        "/nc/323/0629-01",
        "/nc/323/0629-03",
        "/nc/323/0629-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 S.E.2d 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "694"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524086
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "9-10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/91/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "350-51"
        },
        {
          "page": "351"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570898
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "82"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0073-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4579,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2595925600193256e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6121451482306497
    },
    "sha256": "cfc1881bf74cc06ea272e2bf918e4b99cf336dc3f5ba920bb3c34f07146d914a",
    "simhash": "1:1973d67dae9fb7ef",
    "word_count": 757
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:37.144077+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Lewis concurs.",
      "Judge WYNN concurs in the result only."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PAUL M. SPILLMAN and wife, CONNIE SPILLMAN, Plaintiffs Appellees v. AMERICAN HOMES OF MOCKSVILLE, INC., Defendant Appellants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of its motion for a directed verdict. Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to submit either the issue of breach of contract or negligent performance of the contract to the jury. As the jury found in defendant\u2019s favor on the issue of breach of contract, the submission of that issue resulted in no prejudice to defendant and we do not therefore address that portion of defendant\u2019s argument.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claim of negligence is premised upon the allegation that defendant\u2019s failure to properly perform the terms of the contract between the parties resulted in damage to the mobile home which is the subject matter of the contract. Such a premise is clearly insufficient. Absent the existence of a public policy exception, as in the case of contracts involving a common carrier, innkeeper or other bailee, see Ports Authority v. Roofing Co., 294 N.C. 73, 82, 240 S.E.2d 345, 350-51 (1978), a tort action does not lie against a party to a contract who simply fails to properly perform the terms of the contract, even if that failure to properly perform was due to the negligent or intentional conduct of that party, when the injury resulting from the breach is damage to the subject matter of the contract. Id. at 83, 240 S.E.2d at 351; Warfield v. Hicks, 91 N.C. App. 1, 9-10, 370 S.E.2d 689, 694, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 629, 374 S.E.2d 602 (1988); Sims v. Mobile Homes, 27 N.C. App. 25, 28, 217 S.E.2d 737, 739-40, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 511, 219 S.E.2d 347 (1975). It is the law of contract and not the law of negligence whieh defines the obligations and remedies of the parties in such a situation.\nAs the evidence presented by plaintiffs does not support a claim of negligence, the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict as to that issue was error. The judgment entered by the District Court in response to the jury\u2019s answers to issues three and four is reversed.\nReversed.\nJudge Lewis concurs.\nJudge WYNN concurs in the result only.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Law Offices of Grady L. McClamrock, Jr., by Michael J. Parker, for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "Peebles & Schramm, by Stafford R. Peebles, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PAUL M. SPILLMAN and wife, CONNIE SPILLMAN, Plaintiffs Appellees v. AMERICAN HOMES OF MOCKSVILLE, INC., Defendant Appellants\nNo. 9122DC802\n(Filed 3 November 1992)\nNegligence \u00a7 2 (NCI3d)\u2014 negligent performance of contract \u2014 damage to subject matter of contract \u2014 no tort action\nA tort action does not lie against a party to a contract who simply fails to properly perform the terms of the contract, even if that failure to properly perform was due to the negligent or intentional conduct of that party, when the injury resulting from the breach is damage to the subject matter of the contract.\nAm Jur 2d, Contracts \u00a7 732.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Conley (Jessie MJ, Judge. Judgment entered 23 April 1991 in District Court, Davie County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 September 1992.\nPlaintiff Paul Spillman instituted this civil action by filing a complaint on 8 August 1989 wherein he alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent breach of contract, and breach of warranty of construction in a workmanlike manner arising out of plaintiffs\u2019 purchase of a mobile home from defendant. Connie Spillman was subsequently joined by order of the court as an additional party plaintiff. Each claim set forth by plaintiffs was based upon the alleged improper construction and installation of the mobile home by defendant. All damage suffered by plaintiffs consisted of the cost to repair the defects in the mobile home and to repair the damage to the mobile home resulting from the improper installation.\nOn 28 March 1990, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 claims based upon breach of express and implied warranties and breach of warranty of construction in a workmanlike manner. The case was tried before a jury at the 22 April 1991 session of the Civil District Court, Davie County on the two remaining issues of breach of contract and negligent breach of contract. The jury returned a verdict finding that defendant had not breached the contract with plaintiffs and finding that defendant had negligently performed the contract concerning \u201cthe sale and set up of the manufactured home.\u201d The verdict awarded plaintiffs $7,000 for defendant\u2019s negligence.\nDefendant appeals from the trial court\u2019s denial of its motion for a directed verdict.\nLaw Offices of Grady L. McClamrock, Jr., by Michael J. Parker, for plaintiffs, appellees.\nPeebles & Schramm, by Stafford R. Peebles, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0063-01",
  "first_page_order": 91,
  "last_page_order": 93
}
