Baise v. Warren

• Decision Date: 16 June 1932
• Citation: 158 Va. 505
• Parties: HOWARD BAISE v. FITZHUGH LEE WARREN.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 505

158 Va. 505

HOWARD BAISE v. FITZHUGH LEE WARREN.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wytheville.

June 16, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1. CONFLICT OF LAWS — Lex Loci and Lex Fori — General Rule. — The general rule is that the lex loci will govern as to all matters going to the basis of the right of action itself, while the lex fori controls all that is connected merely with the remedy.

2. CONFLICT OF LAWS — Lex Loci and Lex Fori — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for negligence, the cause of action arose in the State of North Carolina, while the defendant was being proceeded against in Virginia, of which State he was a citizen.

Held: That the law of North Carolina was to be applied in determining the mutual rights of the litigants.

3. NEGLIGENCE — Failure to Comply with Statutory Provisions — Driver of Automobile Approaching Road Intersection — Questions of Law and Fact — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for negligence, the cause of action arose in the State of North Carolina. The proof adduced by the plaintiff clearly established that the defendant violated the North Carolina statute as to precautions to be taken by the driver of an automobile upon approaching a road intersection. The defendant failed to regard the statutory provisions requiring the giving of timely signals upon approaching the intersection. Defendant admitted that he was running at a speed of twenty or twenty-five miles an hour, whereas the statute limits the speed of an automobile in traversing an intersection of highways to fifteen miles per hour.

Held: That the violation of the statute having been conclusively proved, the question of proximate or concurrent cause was properly submitted to the jury.

4. NEGLIGENCE — Failure to Comply with Statutory Provisions — Driver of Automobile Approaching Road Intersection — Liability to Passenger — Proximate and Concurring Cause. — The instant case was an action for negligence arising out of a collision at an intersection of roads. The negligence of defendant was established, and whether his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury or whether his negligence was a concurring cause, the result is the same. When the negligence of two or more persons concurs in producing a single indivisible injury, then such persons are jointly and severally liable, although there was no common duty, common design or concert of action.

5. NEGLIGENCE — Conflict of Evidence — Verdict of Jury Conclusive. — The instant case was an action for negligence arising out of a collision at an intersection of roads. The jury on a conflict of evidence concluded that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, and their verdict must stand.

Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

Harris, Harvey & Brown, for the plaintiff in error.

Hygh T. Williams and Ida Mandle, for the defendant in error.

CAMPBELL, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action by notice of motion was brought in the Corporation Court of the city of Danville, by the plaintiff, Fitzhugh Lee Warren, against the defendant, Howard Baise, to recover damages for injuries inflicted upon plaintiff as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. In the trial court there was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000.00, and the defendant is here upon a writ of error granted by a justice of this court.

On the afternoon of the 27th of September, 1930, defendant was driving his automobile, a roadster which had been converted into a light delivery truck, along highway No. 53 in Harnett county, North Carolina. In consideration of services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant at Fairmount, North Carolina, the defendant undertook the transportation of the plaintiff to Danville, Virginia, the domicile of defendant. The day was clear and the highway they were traversing (running north and south), was wide and somewhat hilly. Defendant was proceeding in a northerly direction when he reached an intersecting road which runs east and west, the view of which, to the right, was obstructed by a filling station and store located in the corner formed by the intersection of the two roads. Along this latter route a Mrs. Webster was proceeding in an automobile in a westerly direction. When the cars reached the point of intersection there was a collision, and plaintiff, who occupied a seat upon the right of defendant, was severely injured. There is no dispute of the fact that the point of intersection was plainly indicated by a highway sign marked "Cross Roads." The rate of speed at which defendant was running at the moment of impact was estimated by plaintiff at a "pretty good gait, forty or fifty miles an hour;" by other witnesses, at thirty or forty miles per hour; by defendant himself, at twenty or twenty-five miles an hour.

In the notice of motion plaintiff bases his cause of action on the ground that at the time of the accident the defendant was driving his automobile carelessly, improperly, unlawfully and negligently, and in specific violation of section 2616 of the Consolidated Statutes of North Carolina.

The defendant, in addition to the plea of the general issue, relied on the defense that he was not guilty of any negligence whatsoever which was the proximate cause of the accident, and that the accident resulted wholly from the negligence of Mrs. Webster.

The errors assigned are that the court erred in refusing to strike out the plaintiff's evidence, in refusing to set aside the verdict, in refusing enter judgment for the defendant and in giving and refusing instructions.

1, 2 The cause of action having arisen in the State of North Carolina, while the defendant is being proceeded against in Virginia, of which State he is a citizen, the first question to be considered is whether the law of North Carolina or that of Virginia is to be applied in determining the mutual rights of the litigants. The text-books and decisions are replete with discussions of the applicability of the lex fori and the lex loci in a given case and there is a...