Pinnix v. Toomey, 242 N.C. 358

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed rulings on motions to strike allegations in a negligence complaint arising from construction of a school building. The court held that contractual provisions could be pleaded to establish the parties’ relationship and the source of a legal duty, but provisions that substituted contractual standards of care for the common-law reasonable-care standard, or that were irrelevant or evidentiary, were properly stricken. The court also upheld allegations based on the North Carolina Building Code and modified and affirmed the trial court’s order.

Holdings

1. A contract may be alleged and proved in a negligence action to the extent necessary to show the parties' relationship and the nature and extent of the common-law duty underlying the tort. The complaint should state the ultimate facts from which the law implies the duty, rather than collateral, evidentiary, redundant, or argumentative contract details.
2. When a plaintiff elects to sue in tort rather than contract, actionable negligence is measured by the common-law standard of care of an ordinarily prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. A contract provision prescribing a different standard of care may not replace that common-law standard and is irrelevant to the negligence issue.
3. A complaint need not expressly allege that the defendant owed a particular duty to warn or perform a specific act if it alleges ultimate facts from which the law implies that duty. Custom and common practice are evidentiary matters and need not be specifically pleaded.
4. Material provisions of the North Carolina Building Code, as ratified and adopted by statute, may be referred to or incorporated in a negligence complaint because they prescribe standards of conduct having the force of law, subject to the ordinary rules governing pleadings.
5. The constitutionality of a statute may not be challenged for the first time in the Supreme Court of North Carolina when the issue was not raised in the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether portions of contracts between the defendants and the Board of Education were relevant and properly pleadable in Pinnix's negligence action to establish the parties' relationship and the defendants' legal duties.
2. Whether contractual provisions prescribing particular construction methods, inspections, tests, coordination duties, or other requirements could serve as the standard of care in an action pleaded in tort.
3. Whether the trial court properly refused to strike allegations based on the North Carolina Building Code.
4. Whether the defendants could raise the constitutionality of the statutes authorizing and adopting the North Carolina Building Code for the first time on appeal.
5. Whether specific allegations of negligence based on contract provisions that had themselves been stricken should also be stricken.

Disposition

affirmed