Adams v. Curtis, No. 714DC386

• Decision Date: 14 July 1971
• Docket Number: No. 714DC386
• Citation: 11 N.C.App. 696,182 S.E.2d 223
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edith A. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Paul CURTIS and Gerald A. Curtis, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Eddie L. ADAMS, Third-Party Defendant.

Page 223

182 S.E.2d 223

11 N.C.App. 696

Edith A. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Paul CURTIS and Gerald A. Curtis, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Eddie L. ADAMS, Third-Party Defendant.

No. 714DC386.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 14, 1971.

Ellis, Hooper, Warlick & Waters by William J. Morgan and John D. Warlick, Jr., Jacksonville, for plaintiff appellee.

Joseph C. Olschner, Jacksonville, for defendant appellant.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to grant his motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Both of these motions test the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury and the same test applies for each. Maness v. Fowler-Jones Construction Co., 10 N.C.App. 592, 179 S.E.2d 816 (1971). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury, all evidence which supports plaintiff's claim must be taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to her, giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, and with contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies being resolved in her favor. Musgrave v. Savings & Loan Assoc., 8 N.C.App. 385, 174 S.E.2d 820 (1970). Viewing the evidence in this light, we are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury and the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motions.

Plaintiff and her husband were the only witnesses to testify for her as to the accident itself. Eddie L. Adams, plaintiff's husband, testified:

'I drove up to the intersection. I stopped and then I started off and he comes from the Main Gate. A man by the name of Curtis was driving the other car and he hit me.'

Plaintiff then introduced a diagram of the accident scene and, with the use of the diagram, Mr. Adams pointed out the positions of both vehicles at the time of impact, showing the front portion of his vehicle to be through the intersection in the right-hand, eastbound lane and the rear portion to be in the east side of the intersection. Mr. Adams stated that the Curtis vehicle was in the right-hand northbound lane and that only the front of this vehicle had entered the intersection when it struck the right rear of the Adams car.

Mr. Adams then testified further:

'I was in the right lane and after I stopped, I proceeded on and was struck by a 1964 Chrysler automobile. After my car was struck, it turned around two or three times and then stopped.

As I proceeded down Highway 24, I could see the Guard Shack and traffic coming out on Holcomb Boulevard. I had a clear, unobstructed view of the traffic coming down...