Breach of Contract Cases

The plaintiffs, K and her husband, sought to recover damages from the defendants, G, a physician, and G's medical practice, for personal injuries that K had suffered in connection with G's alleged negligence in, inter alia, failing to perform a proper and adequate episiotomy repair after the birth of the plaintiffs' son. G had performed an episiotomy to facilitate the delivery of the plaintiffs' son. After the delivery, G evaluated K and diagnosed her with a third degree episiotomy extension, which G repaired. After the repair was completed, G performed a digital examina- tion of K's rectum and determined that there were no breaks or defects in K's rectal mucosa. Although an exam of K's perineum the day after the delivery indicated no issues with the repair, K subsequently reported complications, including pain, an infection, and a rectovaginal fistula that required surgery. At trial, the plaintiffs' expert witness, Y, testified that the standard of care requires that a physician, after performing an episiotomy, correctly diagnose and repair the episiotomy and any extension thereof, which must involve a thorough rectal examination before the repair. Y also testified that G failed to satisfy the standard of care because, in failing to conduct a proper examination, G misdiag- nosed and repaired the episiotomy extension as a third degree rather than a fourth degree extension, and that this error led to the rectovaginal fistula. According to the defendants' expert, L, G complied with the standard of care, which required that the rectal exam be performed after rather than before the episiotomy repair. L also testified that G had correctly diagnosed and repaired a third degree episiotomy extension. Finally, another expert witness presented by the defendants testified that K's rectovaginal fistula was not caused by an unrepaired fourth degree episiotomy extension but, rather, an infection. The trial court instructed the jury that the plaintiffs had alleged that G breached

The trial court did not err in concluding the Village and the Harrisburg defendants were entitled to immunity as employees of a political subdivision, and the trial court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of appellees. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilkins' motion for new trial.

Whether the trial court erred in applying the lex loci test, rather than the most significant relationship test, in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted with respect to plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim whether the trial court erred in ruling on motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony.

Whether the trial court erred in applying the lex loci test, rather than the most significant relationship test, in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted with respect to plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim whether the trial court erred in ruling on motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony.

Appeal from Business Court orders denying plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment whether defendant's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support a determination that personal jurisdiction existed.