Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. 311 S.E.2d 559 (N.C. 1984)
FACT
-Plaintiff: Bettye Hairston (John Hairston’s wife)
-Defendant: Haygood Lincoln-Mercury. Inc (Haygood) and Alexander Tank and Equipment Co.
-After John Hairston purchased a new car from Haygood, the left rear wheel of his car came off. Since there were no places to park his car, he stopped his car in the far right lane. However, the truck crashed Hairston’s car and he was killed because he was standing between his car and van. The plaintiff claims that the wheel came off the vehicle because the lug nuts had not been tightened on the wheel studs. And the jury found both defendants negligent. Yet, the Trial court Judge granted Haygood’s motion for judgment and found that Alexander’s negligence was the proximate cause of Hairston’s death.

ISSUE
-The question is whether Haygood was a proximate cause of decedent’s death and Alexander could foresee this event before this events happened because foreseeability is required of proximate cause. Additionally, the question is whether the Hairston’s death had occurred because of only Haygood or both Haygood and Alexander.

RULES
-According to the article, “In order to establish actionable negligence, plaintiff must show
(1) that there has been a failure to exercise proper care in the performance of some legal duty which defendant owed to plaintiff under the circumstances in which they were placed; and
(2) that such negligent breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury.” Thus, the judge has to make sure that there is an proximate cause of the Hairston’s death.

ANALYSIS
-The court of Appeals found out that Alexander was negligent because he failed to check the Hairston’s car which was on the road. The article states “These negligent acts of Alexander -- new and independent of any