Plummer v. Henry Ex Rel. Roberts
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient, if proved, to support a verdict against the owner-defendant, who in this case was father of the driver-defendant, on two theories: First, under the “family purpose doctrine,” and second, on the theory of negligent entrustment. North' Carolina recognizes both. Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568, 119 S.E. 2d 784 (family purpose); Roberts v. Hill, 240 N.C. 373, 82 S.E. 2d 373 (negligent entrustment). The family purpose doctrine is an extension of the principle of respondeat superior by which the negligence of the driver is imputed to the family member who…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hinson v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Roberts v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Heath v. KirkmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Hensley v. McDowell Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Grindstaff v. WattsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Bowman v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1993
- Ferrer v. OkbamicaelSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017
- Hackett v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1990
- Neuhengen v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.