{ "id": 4159971, "name": "ELM ST. GALLERY, INC., WILLIAM B. HEROY, ANNA R. HEROY, Individually and d/b/a HEROY STUDIOS and OLD PHOTO SPECIALISTS, INC., Plaintiffs v. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS and SHELIA V. WILLIAMS, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "ELM St. Gallery, Inc. v. Williams", "decision_date": "2008-08-05", "docket_number": "No. COA08-10", "first_page": "760", "last_page": "768", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "191 N.C. App. 760" } ], "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": "649 S.E.2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639270 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/649/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "748-49" }, { "page": "696", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 N.C. App. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553659 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "748", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "748-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/32/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 S.E.2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790126 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S.E.2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "549" }, { "page": "549" }, { "page": "549" }, { "page": "549" }, { "page": "549" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 767", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571181 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "767-68" }, { "page": "767" }, { "page": "768" }, { "page": "768" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0767-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 10, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719" }, { "page": "720" }, { "page": "720" }, { "page": "721" }, { "page": "721" }, { "page": "724", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "722" }, { "page": "724", "parenthetical": "\"In order to go to the jury on the question of defendant's negligence causing the fire, plaintiffs must not only show that the fire might have been started due to the defendant's negligence, but must show by reasonable affirmative evidence that it did so originate.\"'(Emphasis original)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570212 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" }, { "page": "25" }, { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572271 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 S.E.2d 805", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570953, 8570927, 8570804, 8570876, 8570845 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0452-05", "/nc/297/0452-04", "/nc/297/0452-01", "/nc/297/0452-03", "/nc/297/0452-02" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E.2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549364 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 255", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566400 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.C. App. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8212179 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/185/0668-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 793, "char_count": 19430, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.861534197990611e-08, "percentile": 0.3677531006633977 }, "sha256": "d9ec4d8c102c87788a3d8c9950130e4c5533066a9679d8e32c44ff8606b29cff", "simhash": "1:93e5cce0043fba4d", "word_count": 3046 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:10.260573+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "ELM ST. GALLERY, INC., WILLIAM B. HEROY, ANNA R. HEROY, Individually and d/b/a HEROY STUDIOS and OLD PHOTO SPECIALISTS, INC., Plaintiffs v. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS and SHELIA V. WILLIAMS, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nElm St. Gallery, Inc., William and Anna Heroy, individually and d/b/a Heroy Studios and Old Photo Specialists, Inc. (collectively, \u201cplaintiffs\u201d) appeal from an order entered granting Robert and Shelia Williams\u2019 (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) motion for summary judgment. We affirm.\nI. Background\nElm St. Gallery, Inc. is the owner of property located at 320 South Elm Street, Greensboro, North Carolina (\u201cplaintiffs\u2019 building\u201d). Defendants formerly owned property located at 324 South Elm Street (\u201cdefendants\u2019 building\u201d), which adjoined plaintiffs\u2019 building by a shared party wall. On 24 October 2003, a fire occurred in defendants\u2019 unoccupied building.\nAt the time of the fire, William and Anna Heroy owned a photography business located on the first floor of plaintiffs\u2019 building. The second and third floors of plaintiffs\u2019 building were rented as residential apartments. As a result of the fire, plaintiffs\u2019 building sustained damage and the photography business and residential tenants were required to vacate the premises.\nPlaintiffs commenced repairs and renovations to the party wall and to their building. Plaintiffs demanded defendants demolish the remnants of their building to facilitate plaintiffs\u2019 repairs. Defendants allegedly expressed an intent to comply with plaintiffs\u2019 requests, but failed to do so.\nDue to defendants\u2019 inaction in demolishing the remnants of their building, the City of Greensboro issued a demolition order. On 21 February 2005, defendants sold their property to a third party, who subsequently demolished the building.\nOn 13 June 2006, plaintiffs filed an unverified complaint and alleged defendants had negligently maintained their building in such a condition that caused or contributed to the start and spread of the fire. On 16 June 2006, plaintiffs\u2019 filed an amended complaint and further alleged defendants negligently delayed taking corrective action to remedy the condition of their building after the fire. Defendants filed an answer, denied all of plaintiffs\u2019 allegations, and raised the affirmative defenses of: (1) contributory negligence; (2) res judicata; and (3) failure to mitigate damages.\nOn 26 April 2007, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs\u2019 claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment regarding defendants\u2019 counterclaim. However, no counterclaim was asserted in defendants\u2019 original answer and no amended answer is included as part of the record on appeal.\nThe trial court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment regarding defendants\u2019 counterclaim. The trial court also granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs\u2019 claims contained in their amended complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.\nII. Issues\nPlaintiffs argue genuine issues of material fact exist and the trial court, erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\nIII. Summary Judgment\nPlaintiffs argue the trial court erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding: (1) the cause of the fire and (2) whether defendants negligently delayed taking corrective action to remedy the condition of their building after the fire occurred. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nSummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.\nA defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment by (1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff\u2019s case is nonexistent, or (2) showing through discovery that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his of her claim, or (3) showing that the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense. Summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist.\nOnce the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial.\nWe review an order allowing summary judgment de novo. If the granting of summary judgment can be sustained on any grounds, it should be affirmed on appeal.\nWilkins v. Safran, 185 N.C. App. 668, 672, 649 S.E.2d 658, 661 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nB. Analysis\nOur Supreme Court has \u201cemphasized that summary judgment is a drastic measure, and it should be used with caution[,]\u201d especially in negligence cases in which a jury ordinarily applies a reasonable person standard to the facts of each case. Williams v. Power & Light Co., 296 N.C. 400, 402, 250 S.E.2d 255, 257 (1979) (citation omitted). Summary judgment has been held to be proper in negligence cases \u201cwhere the evidence fails to show negligence on the part of defendant, or where contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff is established, or where it is established that the purported negligence of defendant was not the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injury.\u201d Hale v. Power Co., 40 N.C. App. 202, 203, 252 S.E.2d 265, 267 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 297 N.C. 452, 256 S.E.2d 805 (1979).\n1. Causation\nOur Supreme Court has addressed the issue of causation in several cases that involve negligence actions arising from fire damage. See Snow v. Power Co., 297 N.C. 591, 256 S.E.2d 227 (1979); Phelps v. Winston-Salem, 272 N.C. 24, 157 S.E.2d 719 (1967); Maharias v. Storage Co., 257 N.C. 767, 127 S.E.2d 548 (1962). In both Maharias and Phelps, our Supreme Court affirmed judgments, which dismissed the plaintiffs\u2019 negligence claims based upon a lack of evidence tending to show a causal link between the defendants\u2019 alleged negligence and the origin of the fire. 257 N.C. at 767-68, 127 S.E.2d at 549; 272 N.C. at 24, 157 S.E.2d at 719.\nIn Maharias, a fire originated at the defendant\u2019s warehouse and caused significant damage to the plaintiff\u2019s adjacent restaurant and the contents within. 257 N.C. at 767, 127 S.E.2d at 549. An Assistant Fire Chief inspected the defendant\u2019s building and opined that it was possible the fire had been caused by spontaneous combustion of a pile of furniture-polishing rags, but that \u201c[the] fire could have happened from any one of a number of causes.\u201d Id. Our Supreme Court held that non-suit entered at the close of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence was proper because \u201c[t]he evidence raised amere conjecture, surmise and speculation as to the cause of the fire.\u201d Id. at 768, 127 S.E.2d at 549. Our Supreme Court further stated, \u201c[a] cause of action must be based on something more than a guess.\u201d Id.\nIn Phelps, the plaintiffs were tenants in a building owned and operated by the City of Winston-Salem. 272 N.C. at 25, 157 S.E.2d at 720. A fire originated in the defendant\u2019s building and destroyed a substantial amount of the plaintiffs\u2019 belongings. Id. at 26, 157 S.E.2d at 720. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant had negligently allowed combustible materials to accumulate in the building and had failed to provide fire safety equipment. Id. at. 26, 157 S.E.2d at 721. The fire chief and the captain in charge of the Fire Prevention- Bureau both testified they were unable to determine the cause of the fire. Id. at 27, 157 S.E.2d at 721. Applying the reasoning in Maharias, our Supreme Court held that the cause of the fire was \u201cunexplained\u201d. and stated:\n[p]roof of the burning alone is not sufficient to establish liability, for if nothing more appears, the presumption is that the fire was the result of accident or some providential cause. There can be no liability without satisfactory proof, by either direct or circumstantial evidence, not only of the burning of the property in question but that it was the proximate result of negligence and did not result from natural or accidental causes.\nId. at 31, 157 S.E.2d at 724 (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court further stated that the plaintiff bears the burden to \u201caffirmatively fix [responsibility] upon the defendant by the greater weight of the evidence.\u201d Id. at 28, 157 S.E.2d at 722.\nSeveral years later in Snow, our Supreme Court limited the holdings in Maharias and Phelps to the particular facts presented in both cases and acknowledged that the circumstances in Snow presented a \u201cvery different factual context.\u201d 297 N.C. at 598, 256 S.E.2d at 232. In Snow, the plaintiffs filed a negligence action against Duke Power Company and alleged a fire originated at a faulty electrical meter attached to a barn. Id. at 597, 256 S.E.2d at 232. The plaintiffs presented evidence tending to show:\n(1) that the fire originated at a point where the wiring connecting the weatherhead to the meter box was \u201chot\u201d with electrical current; (2) that the initially compact and concentrated nature of the flames was consistent with an electrical fire; [and] (3) that the fire took some time to spread from the front of the bam \u2014 where the \u201chot wires\u201d were located \u2014 to the back of the barn.\nId. at 598, 256 S.E.2d at 232. The plaintiffs also presented evidence which tended to negate the likelihood of other causes of the fire. Id.\nOur Supreme Court affirmed the trial court\u2019s denial of the defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on the theory of res ipsa loquitur and stated \u201c [i]f the facts proven establish the more reasonable probability that the fire was electrical in origin, then the case cannot be withdrawn from the jury though all possible causes have not been eliminated.\u201d Id. at 597, 256 S.E.2d at 232.\nPlaintiffs argue that Snow is \u201ccontrolling.\u201d We disagree and find the factual backgrounds and analyses presented in Maharias and Phelps to be directly on point with the facts at bar.\nHere, Greensboro Fire Department Inspector Myron E. Kenan (\u201cInspector Kenan\u201d) arrived at the scene of the fire and observed the building fully engulfed in flames. After the fire was extinguished, the building was deemed unsafe to enter. An investigation could not be immediately completed to determine the cause or origin of the fire. A month later, on 25 November 2003, Inspector Kenan returned to the site and conducted his investigation. Inspector Kenan discovered a portion of the second floor was severely damaged and opined that the fire had originated in the right rear comer of that floor. Further investigation revealed \u201cthree generations of electrical wiring design\u201d within the building.\nInspector Kenan photographed and examined all of the electrical panels located in the vicinity of the damaged portion of the second floor. Inspector Kenan\u2019s report specifically stated that he \u201cdid not find any prevalent indications of an electrical cause of the fire. However, with the extent of fire damage [he] [could not] determine that this fire was not electrical in nature.\u201d\nAnother member of the investigation team, \u201cwho ha[d] extensive knowledge of electrical service and equipment[,]\u201d agreed with Inspector Kenan\u2019s findings. The fire investigation report further stated, \u201cIn addition to not being able to deduct all possible accidental causes[,] I cannot make a determination that this fire was or was not incendiary in nature.\u201d The cause of the fire was ultimately listed as \u201cundetermined.\u201d\nAlthough our Supreme Court has acknowledged that \u201cthe origin of a fire may be established by circumstantial evidence[,]\u201d it has also stated, \u201c[w]hether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and into the field of legitimate inference from established facts, must be determined in relation to the attendant facts and circumstances of each case.\u201d Snow, 297 N.C. at 597, 256 S.E.2d at 232 (citations and quotations omitted). Here, plaintiffs\u2019 assertion that the evidence points to \u201can electrical fire originating from the right rear of [defendants\u2019 building\u201d is \u201ca mere conjecture, surmise and speculation as to the cause of the fire.\u201d Maharias, 257 N.C. at 768, 127 S.E.2d at 549.\nThe record is completely devoid of any evidence tending to support plaintiffs\u2019 assertion. Inspector Kenan and two other experts were unable to determine the origin of the fire. Plaintiffs\u2019 unsubstantiated and self-serving allegation that immediately prior to the fire, defendants\u2019 rear gutters could have allowed water to come into contact with electrical wiring is insufficient to submit the issue of defendants\u2019 negligence to the jury. See Phelps, 272 N.C. at 31, 157 S.E.2d at 724 (\u201cIn order to go to the jury on the question of defendant\u2019s negligence causing the fire, plaintiffs must not only show that the fire might have been started due to the defendant\u2019s negligence, but must show by reasonable affirmative evidence that it did so originate.\u201d\u2019(Emphasis original)).\nPlaintiffs have failed to establish any inference that the alleged negligence by defendants was the actual or proximate cause of their injury. Because \u201c[a] cause of action must be based on something more than a guess[,]\u201d the trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment regarding this issue. Maharias, 257 N.C. at 768, 127 S.E.2d at 549. This assignment of error is overruled.\n2, Corrective Action\nPlaintiffs also argue genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether defendants negligently delayed taking corrective action to remedy the condition of their building after the fire occurred. Plaintiffs assert \u201cwater was seeping into Plaintiffs\u2019 property on account of Defendants\u2019 failure to demolish or repair what remained of their building[,]\u201d which impeded repairs to the first floor of plaintiffs\u2019 building and caused a loss of potential rental income.\n\u201cIn order to prevail in a negligence action, plaintiffs must offer evidence of the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.\u201d Camalier v. Jeffries, 340 N.C. 699, 706, 460 S.E.2d 133, 136 (1995) (citation omitted). Presuming arguendo, that plaintiffs could establish a duty and breach thereof, plaintiffs have once again failed to produce any evidence tending to show or to raise any inference that defendants\u2019 alleged negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs\u2019 injury.\nIt is a well established principle that \u201call damages must flow directly and naturally from the wrong, and that they must be certain both in their nature and in respect to the cause from which they proceed.\u201d People\u2019s Center, Inc. v. Anderson, 32 N.C. App. 746, 748, 233 S.E.2d 694, 696 (1977) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). \u201c[N]o recovery is allowed when resort to speculation or conjecture is necessary to determine whether the damage resulted from the unlawful act of which complaint is made or from some other source.\u201d Id. at 748-49, 233 S.E.2d at 696 (citation omitted).\nDuring William Heroy\u2019s deposition he testified, \u201c [according [to] the inspector, the water intrusion from [defendants\u2019] existing building there penetrated the walls top to bottom.\u201d Plaintiffs\u2019 attorney also wrote a letter to defendants that asserted the condition of defendants\u2019 building after the fire was \u201callowing water runoff onto the property at 320 S. Elm Street[.]\u201d\nPlaintiffs have presented no evidence to support these allegations. The record on appeal contains no sworn affidavit from plaintiffs\u2019 supposed inspector nor any inspection report. The record is also completely devoid of any other evidence that tends to establish that defendants\u2019 delay in demolishing and/or repairing their building caused the moisture problems of which plaintiffs now complain.\nFurther, William Heroy, perhaps unknowingly, contradicted his earlier allegations by testifying that at the time of his deposition, the \u201cwater intrusion\u201d was continuing to impact reconstruction even after the total demolition of defendants\u2019 former building was completed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment because speculation or conjecture would be required to determine whether the damage to plaintiffs\u2019 building resulted from defendants\u2019 delay in the demolition, plaintiffs\u2019 repairs to their building, or from some other source. People's Center, Inc., 32 N.C. App. at 748-49, 233 S.E.2d at 696.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 unsubstantiated and contradictory allegations are insufficient to establish any inference that defendants\u2019 alleged negligence was the actual or proximate cause of plaintiffs\u2019 injury. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendants. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV. Conclusion\nPlaintiffs failed to establish defendants\u2019 purported negligence, before or. after the fire, provided a causal connection to plaintiffs\u2019 alleged damages. The trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. The trial court\u2019s order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Butler & Quinn, P.L.L.C., by W. Rob Heroy, for plaintiff - appellants.", "Smith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, L.L.P., by Norman B. Smith, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELM ST. GALLERY, INC., WILLIAM B. HEROY, ANNA R. HEROY, Individually and d/b/a HEROY STUDIOS and OLD PHOTO SPECIALISTS, INC., Plaintiffs v. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS and SHELIA V. WILLIAMS, Defendants\nNo. COA08-10\n(Filed 5 August 2008)\n1. Negligence\u2014 fire damage \u2014 causation\u2014mere conjecture, surmise, and speculation \u2014 summary judgment\nThe trial court did not err in a negligence case arising from fire damage by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on the issue of the cause of the fire because: (1) plaintiffs\u2019 assertion that the evidence pointed to an electrical fire originating from the right rear of defendants\u2019 building was a mere conjecture, surmise, and speculation as to the cause of the fire; (2) the record was devoid of any evidence tending to support plaintiffs\u2019 assertion when an inspector and two other experts were unable to determine the origin of the fire; and (3) plaintiffs failed to establish any inference that the alleged negligence by defendants was the actual or proximate cause of their injury.\n2. Negligence\u2014 fire damage \u2014 proximate cause \u2014 delay taking corrective action to remedy condition \u2014 summary judgment\nThe trial court did not err in a negligence case arising from fire damage by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether defendants negligently delayed taking corrective action to remedy the condition of their building after the fire occurred because: (1) assuming arguendo that plaintiffs could establish a duty and breach thereof, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence tending to show or raise any inference that defendants\u2019 alleged negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs\u2019 injury; (2) speculation or mere conjecture would be required to determine whether the damage to plaintiffs\u2019 building resulted from defendants\u2019 delay in the demolition, plaintiffs\u2019 repairs to their building, or from some other source; and (3) plaintiffs\u2019 unsubstantiated and contradictory allegations were insufficient to establish any inference that defendants\u2019 alleged negligence was the actual or proximate cause of plaintiffs\u2019 injury.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 14 August 2007 by Judge John O. Craig, III in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2008.\nButler & Quinn, P.L.L.C., by W. Rob Heroy, for plaintiff - appellants.\nSmith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, L.L.P., by Norman B. Smith, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0760-01", "first_page_order": 792, "last_page_order": 800 }