Adams v. Godwin, 523
Decision Date | 04 May 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 523,523 |
Parties | Flora Turnage ADAMS v. Samuel M. GODWIN, D/B/A Godwin Sales Company. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Canaday & Canaday, by C. C. Canaday, Jr., Smithfield, for defendant, appellant.
R. E. Batton, Levinson & Levinson, by L. L. Levinson, Smithfield, for plaintiff, appellee.
There is some discrepancy in the evidence whether the collision occurred near or in the intersection. The plaintiff's evidence placed the point of contact between the vehicles at about 30 feet west of the intersection. The defendant's evidence placed it in the intersection. The plaintiff's vehicle skidded and turned over after crossing Fayetteville Street. The defendant's truck stopped in the intersection. It is agreed that no signs had been erected indicating an intersection. All the evidence was to the effect that the streets crossed within the corporate limits of the Town of Benson.
G.S. § 20-150(c) provides: (Emphasis added.) The meaning of the section is that one motorist may not pass another going in the same direction under either of two conditions: (1) At any place designated and marked by the State Highway Commission as an intersection; (2) at any street intersection in any city or town. Donivant v. Swaim, 229 N.C. 114, 47 S.E.2d 707; Cole v. Fletcher Lumber Co., 230 N.C. 616, 55 S.E.2d 86; Levy v. Carolina Aluminum Co., 232 N.C. 158, 59 S.E.2d 632.
On the issue of contributory negligence the defendant was entitled to a charge that if the jury should find by the greater weight of the evidence, the burden being on the defendant, that the plaintiff attempted to pass the defendant's truck going in the same direction at a public street intersection, and should further find that the intersection was located within the corporate limits of the Town of Benson, her attempt so to pass would be negligence on her part; and if the jury should further find that such negligence was one of the proximate causes of her injury and damage,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., Inc. v. George W. Thomas, Inc.
...signs, and street intersections in cities and towns. We considered the effect of G.S. 20--150(c) in the case of Adams v. Godwin, 252 N.C. 471, 114 S.E.2d 76, and there . . . The meaning of the section is that one motorist may not pass another going in the same direction under either of two ......
-
Pruett v. Inman, 388
... ... 523] Highway 52 on its right side of the road at a speed of five or ten miles an hour, and appeared to ... ' Adams v. Godwin, 252 N.C. 470, 114 S.E.2d 76. Defendant states in his brief: 'The defendant contends, ... ...
-
Watson Seafood & Poultry Co. Inc. v. George W. Thomas, Inc.
...limits. We disagree. Plaintiff concedes that the charge was substantially in compliance with G.S. § 20--150(c). In Adams v. Godwin, 252 N.C. 471, 114 S.E.2d 76 (1960), the question on appeal was whether the court erred in its charge as to contributory negligence. There the collision occurre......
- Kersey v. Smith, 522