Carolina Scenic Stages v. Lowther

Decision Date02 May 1951
Docket NumberNo. 524,524
Citation64 S.E.2d 846,233 N.C. 555
PartiesCAROLINA SCENIC STAGES, v. LOWTHER.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Covington & Lobdell, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellant.

Helms & Mulliss and James B. McMillan, Charlotte, for defendant, appellee.

STACY, Chief Justice.

On sharply conflicting evidence, the jury has found both drivers responsible for the collision in suit. Hence, they never reached the issue of damages, either for the plaintiff or for the defendant on his counterclaim. Neither was allowed to recover and the plaintiff was taxed with the costs.

The evidentiary exceptions are not of sufficient moment to require any discussion or elaboration. They are too attenuate to have affected the outcome of the trial. It would be a work of supererogation and repetition to discuss them seriatim. Indeed, they seem to have been abandoned as they are not discussed in plaintiff's brief.

The plaintiff also objected and excepted to the submission of the issue of contributory negligence, but as this exception is not discussed on brief, it is regarded as feckless and deemed abandoned. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916; Rule 28, 221 N.C. 562.

The exceptions to the charge are likewise too unsubstantial to require any extended discussion. The first discussed on brief and regarded as the most important perhaps will suffice to show their attenuateness: The jury was told the defendant's negligence must be 'the proximate cause' of the collision to warrant the jury in answering the first issue for the plaintiff; whereas, the plaintiff's negligence need be only 'one of the proximate causes' to justify an affirmative answer to the second issue, i. e., the issue of contributory negligence. The difference in these instructions on the two issues submitted is now urged as constituting reversible error.

The plaintiff is no position to take advantage of any error committed on the first issue as this issue was answered in its favor. DeWeese v. Belk's Department Store, 233 N.C. 281, 63 S.E.2d 538. So we pass to the instruction on the second issue. We have consistently held that in actions like the present the plaintiff's contributory negligence, in order to bar recovery, need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury as this would exclude any idea of negligence on the part of the defendant. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 220 N.C. 281, 17 S.E.2d 137; Absher v. City of Raleigh, 211 N.C. 267, 190 S.E. 897. It is enough if it contribute to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. McKinnon v. Howard Motor Lines, 228 N.C. 132, 44 S.E.2d 735; Wright v. D. Pender Grocery Co., 210 N.C. 462, 187 S.E. 564. The very term 'contributory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Godwin v. Johnson Cotton Co., 243
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1953
    ...205 N.C. 26, 169 S.E. 808; Lunsford v. Asheville Manufacturing Co., 196 N.C. 510, 146 S.E. 129. In the case of Carolina Scenic Stages v. Lowther, 233 N.C. 555, 64 S.E.2d 846, 847, Stacy, C. J., said: 'We have consistently held that in actions like the present the plaintiff's contributory ne......
  • Young v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 439
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1966
    ...the jury answers the issue in favor of the appellant. Lookabill v. Regan, 247 N.C. 199, 202, 100 S.E.2d 521; Carolina Scenic Stages v. Lowther, 233 N.C. 555, 557, 64 S.E.2d 846. We do not indulge the presumption that the jury applied the questioned instructions to issues other than those di......
  • Bumgardner v. Allison
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1953
    ...a retrial is disclosed. Simmons v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission, N. C., 78 S.E.2d 308; Carolina Scenic Stages v. Lowther, 233 N.C. 555, 64 S.E.2d 846; Call v. Stroud, 232 N.C. 478, 61 S.E.2d The verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error. ...
  • Owens v. Kelly
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1954
    ...term 'contributory negligence' ex vi termini implies or presupposes negligence on the part of the defendant. ' Carolina Scenic Stages v. Lowther, 233 N.C. 555, 64 S.E.2d 846, 848. Three times the court instructed the jury on the burden of proof as to the second issue. The first time incorre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT