{
  "id": 551130,
  "name": "FREDERICK TINCH v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1997-12-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 528PA96",
  "first_page": "380",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "347 N.C. 380"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "477 S.E.2d 193",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11889550
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E.2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560682
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "161"
        },
        {
          "page": "162"
        }
      ],
      "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": "270 S.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5614,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2594632893006774e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8694329283290261
    },
    "sha256": "99fc61982731717a6ba79af138805121fe0c4f5cbec81d6a3169ee3f9a0d6f79",
    "simhash": "1:2a587664c5e1b176",
    "word_count": 872
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:58.211595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FREDERICK TINCH v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPlaintiff instituted this civil action against, among other defendants, Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc. (\u201cHendon\u201d) and Video Industrial Services, Inc. (\u201cVideo\u201d) alleging that both defendants were negligent and that defendant Video had knowingly engaged in conduct substantially certain to cause him injury. Plaintiff had been hired by Video through referral from defendant Western Temporary Services, Inc. to assist on a project in which Video was a subcontractor of Hendon. Plaintiff was injured on the job.\nDefendant Video moved for summary judgment as to. all claims asserted by plaintiff. The trial court entered summary judgment for Video. Defendant Hendon also moved for summary judgment; Hendon\u2019s motion was allowed in part and denied in part. The trial court also determined that there was no just reason for delay for purposes of appeal. On appeal the Court of Appeals granted plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss Hendon\u2019s appeal from the partial denial of Hendon\u2019s motion for summary judgment. On its own motion the Court of Appeals also dismissed as interlocutory plaintiff\u2019s appeal from the order granting Video summary judgment. This Court allowed plaintiff\u2019s petition for discretionary review. Hendon\u2019s petitions for writ of certiorari and discretionary review were denied by this Court.\nThe sole issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing plaintiff\u2019s appeal as interlocutory. Defendant Video agrees with plaintiff that plaintiff\u2019s appeal should not have been dismissed. The general rule is that final judgments are always appealable, but interlocutory decrees can be immediately appealed only when they affect a substantial right and will result in injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment. Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980).\nIn Pelican Watch v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 323 N.C. 700, 375 S.E.2d 161 (1989), the trial judge \u201centered summary judgment in favor of defendant [United States Fire Insurance Company (\u201cUSFIC\u201d)] and against the plaintiffs with respect to the plaintiffs\u2019 claim for actual damages, and entered summary judgment for plaintiffs \u2018against the defendant USFIC on the liability issues on plaintiffs\u2019 claim made pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 75 and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-54.4 and plaintiffs\u2019 claim under the common law for punitive damages. . . Id. at 701, 375 S.E.2d at 161. The Court of Appeals dismissed both the plaintiffs\u2019 and the defendant\u2019s appeals. This Court held that the dismissal of the plaintiffs\u2019 appeal was error. This Court stated:\nPlaintiffs were appealing from a summary judgment which dismissed their claim for compensatory damages. That portion of the trial judge\u2019s order was a final judgment and plaintiffs were entitled to appellate review of the grant of summary judgment against them on the issue of compensatory damages. Oestreicher v. American National Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E.2d 797 (1976).\nId. at 701-02, 375 S.E.2d at 162. The final dismissal of a claim under summary judgment involves a substantial right from which a plaintiff has an immediate right of appeal. Id.\nIn the present case the order granting summary judgment as to Video terminates plaintiff\u2019s action as to that defendant and deprives plaintiff of a jury trial on that alleged cause of action. Furthermore, the applicability of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-10.2 as alleged in Hendon\u2019s answer raises the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as to defendant Video\u2019s liability if plaintiff is required to wait until after trial on the merits against the other defendants to have the merits of plaintiff\u2019s appeal as to Video determined. Under these circumstances a determination of the underlying substantive appeal will, in our view, promote finality rather than fragmentation in this case.\nFor the foregoing reasons we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing plaintiff\u2019s appeal and remand the case to that court for consideration on the merits of the issue raised in plaintiff\u2019s brief previously filed in that court.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Mraz, P.A., by John A. Mraz, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Ball, Barden & Bell, P.A., by Ervin L. Ball, Jr., for defendantappellee Video Industrial Services, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FREDERICK TINCH v. VIDEO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., HENDON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, and CARYLON CORPORATION\nNo. 528PA96\n(Filed 5 December 1997)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 120 (NCI4th)\u2014 summary judgment as to one defendant \u2014 right of immediate appeal\nThe Court of Appeals erred by dismissing as interlocutory plaintiffs appeal from an order granting summary judgment for defendant Video where (1) the summary judgment order terminates plaintiffs action as to that defendant and deprives plaintiff of a jury trial on that alleged cause of action, and (2) the applicability of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-10.2 as alleged in defendant Hendon\u2019s answer raises the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as to defendant Video\u2019s liability if plaintiff is required to wait until after trial on the merits against the other defendants to have the merits of plaintiffs appeal as to defendant Video determined.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 693.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 124 N.C. App. 391, 477 S.E.2d 193 (1996), dismissing as interlocutory appeals by plaintiff and by defendant Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc. from an order entered 5 October 1995 by Gardner, J., in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 September 1997.\nJohn A. Mraz, P.A., by John A. Mraz, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBall, Barden & Bell, P.A., by Ervin L. Ball, Jr., for defendantappellee Video Industrial Services, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0380-01",
  "first_page_order": 420,
  "last_page_order": 422
}