{
  "id": 11889550,
  "name": "FREDERICK TINCH, Plaintiff v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-155",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 391"
    }
  ],
  "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": "290 S.E.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572803
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "606"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 S.E.2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606, 290 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606, 290 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "376 S.E.2d 488",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606, 290 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1982)"
        },
        {
          "page": "491-92"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527773
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606, 290 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/93/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "755-56"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.C. App. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548833
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "188-89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/47/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2562552
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0700-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 S.E.2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "352",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Tridyn, 296 N.C. 486, 491, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N.C. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522932
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "141",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Tridyn, 296 N.C. 486, 491, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/90/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E.2d 443",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "446"
        },
        {
          "page": "447"
        },
        {
          "page": "446-47"
        },
        {
          "page": "490"
        },
        {
          "page": "447",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567731
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "490"
        },
        {
          "page": "491"
        },
        {
          "page": "490"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "340",
          "parenthetical": "footnote omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572343
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "201",
          "parenthetical": "footnote omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 S.E.2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2503935
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0288-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "594"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.C. App. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525410
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "661"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/102/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-277",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4714861,
        4717589,
        4718136,
        4718201,
        4717178
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0183-03",
        "/nc/315/0183-05",
        "/nc/315/0183-02",
        "/nc/315/0183-04",
        "/nc/315/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 217",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "218"
        },
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526659
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655"
        },
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/75/0654-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253"
        },
        {
          "page": "253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12129791
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379"
        },
        {
          "page": "379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "431 S.E.2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "803"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521434
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 569,
    "char_count": 11890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8545949051601434e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8409409197215745
    },
    "sha256": "ab796a4c30c590a41eacaf3d50e7111d986ff5b2301a27aceff74bea66bd9159",
    "simhash": "1:0be8de3d4b2b0f74",
    "word_count": 1922
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FREDERICK TINCH, Plaintiff v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nOn 20 June 1994 plaintiff Frederick Tinch brought this action in tort to recover damages for injuries received while working on a job site in Asheville, North Carolina. Plaintiff Tinch named Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc., the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County and Western Temporary Services as defendants. Plaintiff also named Video Industrial Services, Inc., and Carylon Corporation, as defendants.\nOn 23 August 1994, defendant Hendon moved for summary judgment as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Tinch. On 5 October 1995 the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hendon as to all claims, except the trial court denied Hendon\u2019s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs claim that defendant Hendon owed a duty to plaintiff pursuant to Chapter 89C of the North Carolina General Statutes.\nOn 1 November 1994 defendants Video and Carylon moved for summary judgment as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Tinch. On 5 October 1995 the trial court granted Video\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nPlaintiff Tinch gave notice of appeal from the 5 October 1995 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Video. Defendant Hendon gave notice of appeal from paragraph 2(c) of the 5 October 1995 order, partially denying summary judgment to Hendon. On 29 February 1996 plaintiff appellant Tinch filed a motion to dismiss defendant appellant Hendon\u2019s appeal as being interlocutory. We hold that both defendant Hendon\u2019s and plaintiff Tinch\u2019s appeals are interlocutory and dismiss. We first address the interlocutory nature of defendant appellant Hendon\u2019s appeal and then address the interlocutory nature of plaintiff appellant Tinch\u2019s appeal.\nAn order or judgment is interlocutory if it is made during the pen-dency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy. Cagle v. Teachy, 111 N.C. App. 244, 247, 431 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1993). Generally, no right of appeal lies from an interlocutory order. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994). The purpose of this rule is \u201c \u2018to prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Fraser v. Di Santi, 75 N.C. App. 654, 655, 331 S.E.2d 217, 218, disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 183, 337 S.E.2d 856 (1985). However, there are two avenues by which a party may immediately appeal an interlocutory order or judgment. First, if the order or judgment is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties, and the trial court certifies the case for appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), an immediate appeal may lie. Jeffreys, 115 N.C. App. at 379, 444 S.E.2d at 253. Second, an appeal is permitted under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(l) if the trial court\u2019s decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be lost absent immediate review. Id. An appeal of an order denying a motion for partial summary judgment is interlocutory as long as a substantial right is not affected. Travco Hotels, Inc. v. Piedmont Natural Gas Co., 102 N.C. App. 659, 661, 403 S.E.2d 593, 594 (1991), aff'd and remanded, 332 N.C. 288, 420 S.E.2d 426 (1992).\nHendon appeals from the 5 October 1995 order denying partial summary judgment as to plaintiff\u2019s claim that Hendon breached a duty to plaintiff pursuant to Chapter 89C of the North Carolina General Statutes. The trial court\u2019s partial denial of summary judgment is interlocutory because it leaves further action for the trial court and does not dispose of the case in its entirety. Furthermore, the trial court certified all claims in the 5 October 1995 order for immediate appeal except the one from which Hendon appeals. Therefore, Hendon must show that a substantial right will be lost or prejudiced without review before final judgment is rendered. Hendon has not shown that it will be deprived of any substantial right if we decline review and plaintiff proceeds to trial on the theory of liability pursuant to Chapter 89C. Because Hendon\u2019s claim was not certified for immediate appeal and because no substantial right will be lost or prejudiced, we grant plaintiff appellant\u2019s motion to dismiss Hendon\u2019s appeal.\nOn our own motion, we dismiss plaintiff appellant Tinch\u2019s appeal of the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant appellee Video Industrial Services, Inc. \u201cIf an appealing party has no right of appeal, an appellate court on its own motion should dismiss the appeal even though the question of appealability has not been raised by the parties themselves.\u201d Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978) (footnote omitted).\nThe trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Video as to all of plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff assigns error to the trial court\u2019s granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Video, and the only claim addressed in plaintiffs brief is the Woodson claim. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the trial court certified the order of summary judgment in Video\u2019s favor, finding there was no just reason for delay and entering final judgment, thereby releasing it for immediate appeal. \u201cRule 54(b) modifies the traditional notion that a case could not be appealed until the trial court had finally and entirely disposed of it all.\u201d Tridyn Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 490, 251 S.E.2d 443, 446 (1979). \u201c[A] trial judge cannot \u2018by denominating his decree a \u201cfinal judgment\u201d make it immediately appealable under Rule 54(b) if it is not such a judgment.\u2019 \u201d Pelican Watch v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 140, 141, 367 S.E.2d 351, 352 (1988) (quoting Tridyn, 296 N.C. 486, 491, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979)), rev\u2019d, 323 N.C. 700, 375 S.E.2d 161 (1989). A finding that \u201cthere is no just reason for delay\u201d under Rule 54(b) is not enough. The judgment must also be final. Cook v. Tobacco Co., 47 N.C. App. 187, 188-89, 266 S.E.2d 754, 755-56 (1980). A determination by the trial court in its appeal entries that there is no just reason to delay the appeal must be construed in light of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27 and our well-settled case law concerning interlocutory appeals. Fraser, 75 N.C. App. at 655, 331 S.E.2d at 218. \u201cIn multiple claim or multiple party cases the trial court may enter a judgment which is final and which fully terminates fewer than all the claims or claims as to fewer than all the parties.\u201d Tridyn, 296 N.C. at 490, 251 S.E.2d at 446-47. \u201cWhether a case involves multiple parties is not difficult to determine . . . however, it is important in applying Rule 54(b) to distinguish the true multiple claim case from the case in which only a single claim based on a single factual occurrence is asserted but in which various kinds of remedies may be sought.\u201d Id. at 490, 251 S.E.2d at 447 (emphasis added).\nOur Supreme Court has said that \u201c \u2018[t]he right to avoid one trial on . . . disputed [fact] issues is not normally a substantial right that would allow an interlocutory appeal while the right to avoid the possibility of two trials on the same issues can be such a substantial right.\u2019 \u201d Davidson v. Knauff Ins. Agency, 93 N.C. App. 20, 25, 376 S.E.2d 488, 491, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 577, 381 S.E.2d 772 (1989) (quoting Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606, 290 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1982)). \u201c[I]f the final disposition of multiple claims depends upon the determination of any common fact issues, then the parties ordinarily have a substantial right that those issues be determined by the same jury.\u201d Id. at 26, 376 S.E.2d at 491-92.\nIn this case, plaintiff alleged that defendant Video\u2019s intentional, willful and wanton misconduct was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Hendon was negligent in failing to investigate the safety record of defendant Video before contracting with Video, in failing to investigate the nature and origin of the equipment that Video used to perform its work, in failing to require Video to use safe equipment which conformed to accepted standards, in failing to require people using Video\u2019s winch to be properly trained and in failing to warn plaintiff of the dangers of winch operation. The only remaining claim left for trial is plaintiff\u2019s claim that defendant Hendon owed a duty to plaintiff pursuant to Chapter 89C of the North Carolina General Statutes, and that Hendon\u2019s breach of that duty caused the injuries and damages suffered by plaintiff. Video\u2019s alleged intentional, willful and wanton misconduct with respect to plaintiff\u2019s injuries does not affect plaintiff\u2019s claim that defendant Hendon\u2019s ordinary negligence caused plaintiff\u2019s injuries. There are no common fact issues between these defendants. The resolutions of plaintiff\u2019s legal claims against Video and Hendon are not dependent upon the same set of facts. Thus, dismissing the appeal against Video will not result in plaintiff having to undergo duplicate trials on the same issues of fact, nor will our dismissal result in inconsistent verdicts. This is a true multiple claim case involving different facts to support the claims alleged. Thus, dismissal of this appeal will not prejudice a substantial right of plaintiff in this case and will not result in inconsistent verdicts as to the liability of defendants Video and Hendon. This appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.\nAppeals dismissed.\nJudges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mraz & Dungan, by John A. Mraz and Carl Spencer Abridge, II, for plaintiff appellant-appellee.",
      "Ball, Barden, Contrivo & Bell, P.A., by Ervin L. Ball, Jr., for defendant appellant-appellee Video Industrial Services, Inc.",
      "Hunton & Williams, by Frank A. Hirsch, Jr., and Talcott J. Franklin, for defendant appellant-appellee Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FREDERICK TINCH, Plaintiff v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION, Defendant\nNo. COA96-155\n(Filed 5 November 1996)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 118 (NCI4th)\u2014 partial denial of summary judgment \u2014 nonappealable interlocutory order\nDefendant engineering company\u2019s appeal from the trial court\u2019s partial denial of summary judgment as to plaintiff worker\u2019s claim that defendant breached a statutory duty to plaintiff was dismissed as interlocutory where this claim was not certified for immediate appeal by the trial court, and defendant has not shown that it will be deprived of any substantial right without review before final judgment on this claim.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 169, 170.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 121 (NCI4th)\u2014 partial summary judgment \u2014 nonappealable interlocutory order\nPlaintiff worker\u2019s appeal from the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant video company as to plaintiff\u2019s Woodson claim based on alleged intentional, willful and wanton misconduct was dismissed as interlocutory where the only claim left for trial is plaintiff\u2019s claim that defendant engineering company\u2019s breach of a statutory duty caused plaintiff\u2019s injuries; the resolutions of plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendant video company and defendant engineering company are not dependent upon the same facts; and dismissal of this appeal will not prejudice a substantial right of plaintiff or result in inconsistent verdicts as to the liability of defendant video company and defendant engineering company.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 169, 170.\nAppeal by plaintiff and defendant Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc., from order entered 5 October 1995 by Judge John M. Gardner in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1996.\nMraz & Dungan, by John A. Mraz and Carl Spencer Abridge, II, for plaintiff appellant-appellee.\nBall, Barden, Contrivo & Bell, P.A., by Ervin L. Ball, Jr., for defendant appellant-appellee Video Industrial Services, Inc.\nHunton & Williams, by Frank A. Hirsch, Jr., and Talcott J. Franklin, for defendant appellant-appellee Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 429,
  "last_page_order": 433
}
