{ "id": 4156626, "name": "HARVEY GENE HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TERESA HENSON WEST, C.F. WEST, INC., CHARLES F. WEST, SR., ANNETTE WEST, and CHARLES F. WEST, JR., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. West", "decision_date": "2008-03-04", "docket_number": "No. COA07-467", "first_page": "194", "last_page": "199", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "189 N.C. App. 194" } ], "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": "657 S.E.2d 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640512, 12640513, 12640514, 12640515, 12640497, 12640498, 12640499, 12640500, 12640501, 12640502, 12640503, 12640504, 12640505, 12640506, 12640507, 12640508, 12640509, 12640510, 12640511 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0446-16", "/se2d/657/0446-17", "/se2d/657/0446-18", "/se2d/657/0446-19", "/se2d/657/0446-11", "/se2d/657/0446-01", "/se2d/657/0446-02", "/se2d/657/0446-03", "/se2d/657/0446-04", "/se2d/657/0446-05", "/se2d/657/0446-06", "/se2d/657/0446-07", "/se2d/657/0446-08", "/se2d/657/0446-09", "/se2d/657/0446-10", "/se2d/657/0446-12", "/se2d/657/0446-13", "/se2d/657/0446-14", "/se2d/657/0446-15" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640572 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "627 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635429 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/627/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "608 S.E.2d 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632408, 12632409, 12632410, 12632411, 12632412, 12632413, 12632414, 12632415, 12632416, 12632417, 12632418, 12632419, 12632420, 12632421, 12632422, 12632423, 12632424, 12632425, 12632426, 12632427, 12632428, 12632429, 12632430 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/608/0416-23", "/se2d/608/0416-01", "/se2d/608/0416-02", "/se2d/608/0416-03", "/se2d/608/0416-04", "/se2d/608/0416-05", "/se2d/608/0416-06", "/se2d/608/0416-07", "/se2d/608/0416-08", "/se2d/608/0416-09", "/se2d/608/0416-10", "/se2d/608/0416-15", "/se2d/608/0416-11", "/se2d/608/0416-12", "/se2d/608/0416-13", "/se2d/608/0416-14", "/se2d/608/0416-16", "/se2d/608/0416-17", "/se2d/608/0416-18", "/se2d/608/0416-19", "/se2d/608/0416-20", "/se2d/608/0416-21", "/se2d/608/0416-22" ] }, { "cite": "168 N.C. App. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12632408, 12632406 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/608/0416-23", "/se2d/608/0415-11" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684893 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0666-01" ] }, { "cite": "528 S.E.2d 51", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11093118 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 S.E.2d 148", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2505409, 2504968, 2504747, 2505141, 2504699 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0345-01", "/nc/332/0345-02", "/nc/332/0345-05", "/nc/332/0345-04", "/nc/332/0345-03" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 5313291 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/106/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923", "parenthetical": "quoting Hoots v. Pryor, 106 N.C. App. 397, 404, 417 S.E.2d 269, 274, disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9080008 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272", "parenthetical": "quoting Hoots v. Pryor, 106 N.C. App. 397, 404, 417 S.E.2d 269, 274, disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "609 S.E.2d 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" }, { "page": "262" }, { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8468526 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" }, { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11470258 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0729-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 N.C. App. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N.C. App. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4156668 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/189/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8301007 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/177/0132-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 452, "char_count": 9896, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.76507708487695e-08, "percentile": 0.4561256274014431 }, "sha256": "ea2e8eb0e330a014d936577e68b54518f4a9a430ba8507837325bd494f42e13e", "simhash": "1:af83fe7a570f7d18", "word_count": 1659 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:52.494477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and BRYANT concur." ], "parties": [ "HARVEY GENE HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TERESA HENSON WEST, C.F. WEST, INC., CHARLES F. WEST, SR., ANNETTE WEST, and CHARLES F. WEST, JR., Defendants-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nHarvey Gene Hill, Jr. appeals from an order granting summary judgment to C.F. West, Inc., Charles F. West, Sr., Annette West, and Charles F. West, Jr. on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order.\nIn an earlier action (the first case), the following plaintiffs filed a complaint on 16 October 2002 and an amended complaint on 18 December 2002: Hayden Hill, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem; Harvey Gene Hill, Jr., individually and as parent and natural guardian of the minor, Hayden Hill; and Regina Hill, individually and as parent and natural guardian of the minor, Hayden Hill. The plaintiffs named the following as defendants: Teresa Henson West; C.F. West, Inc.; Charles West, Sr.; Annette West; Charles West, Jr.; and Richard Lester.\nIn the first case, the plaintiffs alleged that on 21 January 2001, Teresa Henson West was operating a vehicle owned by C.F. West, Inc. with the \u201cexpressed and/or implied owner\u2019s permission!)]\u201d The plaintiffs further alleged that Teresa Henson West \u201cnegligently operated said vehicle [on US Highway 70] by crossing the grass median and going into the west bound lane, striking the plaintiffs\u2019 vehicle head on.\u201d The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered injuries as a result of the crash. The plaintiffs alleged a negligence claim against Teresa Henson West for the negligent operation of the vehicle, and alleged claims against the remaining defendants for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to Teresa Henson West.\nIn the first case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on 19 December 2002, and the trial court granted the motion on 17 February 2003 as to Charles F. West, Jr. and Richard Lester. C.F. West, Inc., Charles F. West, Sr., and Annette West filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court allowed on 28 October 2003. The plaintiffs appealed.\nIn the present case, Harvey Gene Hill, Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint on 8 January 2004 and an amended complaint on 20 January 2004 against C.F. West, Inc., Charles F. West, Sr., Annette West, and Charles F. West, Jr. (Defendants), and Teresa Henson West. Teresa Henson West is not a party to this appeal.\nPlaintiff again alleged that on 21 January 2001, Teresa Henson West was operating a vehicle owned by C.F. West, Inc. with the \u201cexpressed and/or implied owner\u2019s permission!)]\u201d Plaintiff further alleged that Teresa Henson West \u201cnegligently operated said vehicle [on US Highway 70] by crossing the grass median and going into the west bound lane, striking . . . [Plaintiff\u2019s] vehicle head on.\u201d Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of the crash. Plaintiff again alleged a negligence claim against Teresa Henson West for the negligent operation of the vehicle, and alleged claims against the remaining Defendants for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to Teresa Henson West.\nDefendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel on 27 January 2004. Defendants further alleged that because the first case was still pending, the present action was abated. The trial court entered an order dated 10 February 2004, staying the present case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first case.\nWith regard to the first case, our Court filed an opinion on 15 February 2005, Hill v. West, 168 N.C. App. 595, 608 S.E.2d 416 (2005) (unpublished). Our Court dismissed the appeal in the first case as interlocutory and as not affecting a substantial right because the plaintiffs still had claims pending against Teresa Henson West.\nThe trial court entered a consent order in the first case on 19 April 2005, dismissing without prejudice the plaintiffs\u2019 claims against Teresa Henson West. The plaintiffs again appealed from the 28 October 2003 summary judgment order and from the 19 April 2005 consent order. Our Court filed an opinion on 4 April 2006, Hill v. West, 177 N.C. App. 132, 627 S.E.2d 662 (2006), dismissing the plaintiffs\u2019 appeal for an appellate rules violation and because \u201cno final determination of the plaintiffs\u2019 rights as to Teresa Henson West [had] been made in the trial court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54.\u201d Id. at 136, 627 S.E.2d at 664.\nIn the present case, Plaintiff filed a motion on 25 July 2006 to lift the stay entered 10 February 2004. Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss on 1 August 2006. The trial court granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion to lift the stay on 28 August 2006. The trial court converted Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment on 6 September 2006 for all Defendants, except Teresa Henson West.\nThe trial court entered an order for entry of default against Teresa Henson West on 3 November 2006, and entered judgment by default against Teresa Henson West on 6 February 2007. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal in the present case on 21 February 2007. In an order entered 23 May 2007, our Court consolidated the present case for hearing with two other related cases, Hill v. West, (No. COA07-468) 189 N.C. App. 189, 657 S.E.2d 698 (2008), and Hill v. West, (No. COA07-469) 189 N.C. App. 209, 657 S.E.2d 446 (unpublished) (2008). For clarity, we issue three separate opinions.\nIn the present case, Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff argues there was a genuine issue of material fact as to \u201cwhether . . . Defendants should have forseen th\u00e9 danger of Teresa Henson West driving a C.F. West Inc. vehicle.\u201d Although Plaintiff does not argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Defendants on the ground of res judicata, we find that issue dispositive.\n\u201c[T]he standard of review on appeal from summary judgment is whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d BruceTerminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.\n\u201cRes judicata precludes a second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them when there has been a final judgment on the merits in a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction.\u201d Moody v. Able Outdoor, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 80, 84, 609 S.E.2d 259, 261 (2005).\nIn order to successfully assert the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant must prove the following essential elements: (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) an identity of the causes of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies in the two suits.\nId. at 84, 609 S.E.2d at 262.\n\u201c[I]t is well settled in this State that \u2018[a] dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice.\u2019\u201d Clancy v. Onslow Cty., 151 N.C. App. 269, 272, 564 S.E.2d 920, 923 (2002) (quoting Hoots v. Pryor, 106 N.C. App. 397, 404, 417 S.E.2d 269, 274, disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). Moreover, \u201c[i]n general, a cause of action determined by an order for summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits.\u201d Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C. App. 305, 310, 528 S.E.2d 51, 55, aff\u2019d per curiam, 352 N.C. 666, 535 S.E.2d 356 (2000).\nIn the first case, the trial court granted the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss on 17 February 2003 as to Charles F. West, Jr. and Richard Lester. The trial court did not specify that the dismissal was without prejudice. The trial court also entered summary judgment on 28 October 2003 for all of the remaining defendants except Teresa Henson West, and dismissed the plaintiffs\u2019 claims with prejudice. Our Court dismissed the defendants\u2019 appeal from this summary judgment order, and the order was thus final. See Hill v. West, 177 N.C. App. 132, 627 S.E.2d 662 (2006). We hold these orders were final judgments on the merits that precluded \u201ca second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them[,]\u201d Moody, 169 N.C. App. at 84, 609 S.E.2d at 261.\nAs to the second and third elements of res judicata, Plaintiff states in his brief that in his complaint in the present case, he alleged \u201cthe same causes of action for negligence against the same Defendants previously sued.\u201d Accordingly, it is clear that the present action involves one of the same plaintiffs and the same defendants as the first case. Therefore, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to Defendants in the present case on the ground of res judicata. We overrule Plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error.\nPlaintiff has failed to set forth argument pertaining to his remaining assignment of error, and we deem that assignment abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and BRYANT concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lucas, Denning & Ellerbe, P.A., by Sarah Ellerbe, for Plaintiff - Appellant.", "Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P, by Kenyann Brown Stanford, for Defendants-Appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HARVEY GENE HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TERESA HENSON WEST, C.F. WEST, INC., CHARLES F. WEST, SR., ANNETTE WEST, and CHARLES F. WEST, JR., Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA07-467\n(Filed 4 March 2008)\nCollateral Estoppel and Res Judicata\u2014 multiple parties\u2014 prior final judgment as to some\nSummary judgment on res judicata for all of the defendants except Teresa West (who was not a party to this appeal) was proper. Although there were multiple orders, interlocutory appeals, and decisions, there were final judgments on the merits as to these defendants, and it is clear that the present action involves the same plaintiffs, the same claims, and the same defendants as the first case.\nAppeal by Plaintiff from order entered 6 September 2006 by Judge Knox V. Jenkins, Jr. in Superior Court, Johnston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 November 2007.\nLucas, Denning & Ellerbe, P.A., by Sarah Ellerbe, for Plaintiff - Appellant.\nBailey & Dixon, L.L.P, by Kenyann Brown Stanford, for Defendants-Appellees." }, "file_name": "0194-01", "first_page_order": 226, "last_page_order": 231 }