Hill v. Williams
North Carolina Court of Appeals
144 N.C. App. 45, 547 S.E.2d 472 (2001)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Richard Ray Hill (plaintiff) worked for the company Drywall as a drywall finisher. Stephen and Patricia Williams (defendants) hired Drywall to do work on the construction of their new home. The Williamses had a Rottweiler named Rowdy that they allowed to roam freely on the property. Rowdy was only restrained by an underground electric shock fence that ran around the perimeter of the property. Hill’s boss asked the Williamses whether Rowdy would bite him or his employees and was told that the dog was friendly. One day on the jobsite, Hill’s boss asked him to come outside of the home to help her repair a texturizing machine used to install the drywall. When Hill went outside, Rowdy jumped up on Hill and bit his ear off. Hill’s boss helped him escape the dog by throwing him into the company’s van and driving off. Hill had to undergo surgery and multiple hospitalizations as a result of the attack. Hill filed a negligence suit against the Williamses for his injuries. At trial, the jury unanimously returned a verdict finding the Williamses guilty of negligence and further held that Hill did not contribute to his injuries by his own negligence. The Williamses appealed the judgment entered on the verdict, alleging that Hill was contributorily negligent for not asking them to restrain Rowdy and for agreeing to assist his boss and go outside where he was aware the dog was running loose.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (John, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.