Anderson v. Talman Office Supplies
| Decision Date | 19 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
| Parties | ANDERSON, v. TALMAN OFFICE SUPPLIES, Inc. et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
James S. Howell and Oscar Stanton, Asheville, for plaintiff appellant.
Smathers & Meekins and J. Y. Jordan, Jr., Asheville, for defendant appellees.
When a motorist observes signs, signals, or markings upon a street which are in common use by municipalities for the purpose of controlling and directing traffic, he has the right to assume that they were placed there by or under the direction of the municipal authorities. He may operate his automobile in obedience to such signs or signals and presume that other motorists will do likewise. If, in an action to recover damages for injuries inflicted by reason thereof, it is denied by the defendant that such signs, signals, or markings were official, plaintiff, in order to hold defendant guilty of negligence in that he disregarded them, may be required to show that they were placed on the street by direction of the proper authorities. But here there is no such denial. Hence that question is reserved for future consideration.
The rule of the road contained in G.S. § 20-149 does not apply where there are three lanes available to the motorist, as here, and the forward vehicle is in the left-turn lane and the overtaking vehicle is in the through-traffic lane. Maddox v. Brown, 232 N.C. 542, 61 S.E.2d 613. As the plaintiff intended to proceed easterly in the center lane across Valley Street, and had the right to assume that defendant's truck, standing in the left-turn lane, would turn to the left upon the change of the traffic signal, he had the right and it was his duty to pass the truck on its right. This was the plain significance of the traffic-directing markings on the street. G.S. § 20-153.
Defendants seek, however, to justify the conduct of the individual defendant by asserting that he heard the siren and turned to the right as required by G.S. § 20-157 which provides that: '(a) Upon the approach of any police or fire department vehicle giving audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust whistle, the driver of every other vehicle shall immediately drive the same to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb, clear of any intersection of highways, and shall stop and remain in such position unless otherwise directed by a police or traffic officer until the police or fire department vehicle shall have passed.'
But on this record this position is untenable. Regardless of the fact the truck was standing in the left-turn lane and plaintiff was traveling in the center or through-traffic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re C.G.
-
Branch v. Dempsey, 194
...for convenience. It does not change the facts essential for recovery or the applicable rules of evidence. In Anderson v. Talman Office Supplies, 234 N.C. 142, 66 S.E.2d 677, Barnhill, J., later C. J., again speaking for the Court, 'That the declarations of Dockery [the driver] made immediat......
-
In re C.G.
... ... court responded: ... Because it sounds like the DA's office is refusing to do ... anything, and then it sounds like the Attorney ... ...
-
Madron v. Thomson
...while acting within the scope of his employment, yet his principal had escaped.' 256 F.2d at 67--68. Anderson v. Talman Office Supplies, Inc., 234 N.C. 142, 66 S.E.2d 677 (1951), also held in accordance with our reasoning and that of Grayson v. Williams, supra, 256 F.2d 61. The court in And......