Carrigan v. Dover
| Decision Date | 04 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 255,255 |
| Citation | 110 S.E.2d 825,251 N.C. 97 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edwin W. CARRIGAN, Plaintiff, v. John Charies DOVER and Paul L. Yount, trading under the name and style of Yount Reep Motor Co., Defendants. |
Bailey & Booe, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.
Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman, Charlotte, for defendants, appellants.
Plaintiff and defendants offered evidence. Defendants assign as error the denial by the trial court of their motion for judgment of nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence. Defendants' contention in their brief on this assignment of error is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Plaintiff's evidence shows the following facts:
About 3:00 a. m. on January 26, 1958 plaintiff was driving a 1956 Ford automobile, which was in good operating condition, in a northerly direction along Independence Boulevard in the city of Charlotte. It was a dark night, the weather was dry, and there was no moon. Independence Boulevard is a paved highway about 60 feet wide with three lanes for traffic going north and three lanes for traffic going south. On this occasion there was a black or white line--the evidence differs as to the color of the line--on the middle of the Boulevard separating the north lanes from the south lanes.
The collision in which plaintiff was injured occurred on Independence Boulevard between the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Independence Boulevard and the intersection of Fifth Street and Independence Boulevard. The distance between these two intersections is 385 feet. The parties stipulated in open court that the legal speed limit at the time and place where the collision occurred was 35 miles an hour.
When plaintiff reached the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Independence Boulevard, he was driving between 20 and 30 miles an hour in the lane of travel next to the white or black line in the middle of Independence Boulevard. Just before he drove across the intersection, he saw an automobile about 50 feet ahead travelling on Independence Boulevard in the same direction he was going and at a slightly lower speed than he was. About 220 feet from the intersection plaintiff had just passed through, Independence Boulevard makes a slight turn to the left. When the automobile in front approached this slight turn, it gave a signal by blinker for making a left turn. Whereupon, plaintiff proceeded to change lanes by moving from the lane he was driving in to the center lane. Plaintiff testified: ' The Ford automobile was demolished, plaintiff was knocked unconscious, and injured.
The automobile plaintiff was following was between him and the tractor-trailer, when it signalled for a left turn. The front automobile partially kept plaintiff from seeing the tractor-trailer. He did not see the tractor-trailer, when he started to change lanes.
Plaintiff's testimony on cross-examination was to this effect: The automobile in front of him was about five feet high. There were street lights along the Boulevard. The Toddle House was open the night of the collision. They have lights inside the Toddle House. A sign in front of the Toddle House says 'Toddle House.' He did not recall whether this sign was burning at the time: this sign is not designed to put out light. There was a sign that said 'No Parking, Stopping or Standing' where the tractor-trailer was parked. He was 35 feet from the tractor-trailer when he saw it. From the time he saw it until the collision there was such a short time he was unable to do anything. He tried to turn, and did not make it.
T. H. Cooper, a police officer of Charlotte and witness for plaintiff, arrived at the scene shortly after the collision, about 3:18 a. m. When he arrived, the rear end of the tractor-trailer was from two to three feet from the curb, the front end just slightly a few inches closer than the rear wheels, and twelve to eighteen inches of the tractor-trailer was in the middle lane for traffic. Cooper testified: ' Cooper testified on cross-examination to the effect that at the time Independence Boulevard was better lighted than other Charlotte streets.
Defendant Dover was driver of the tractor-trailer. Defendant Yount was the owner of the tractor-trailer. Defendants in their joint answer admit that at the time and place defendant Dover was an agent of defendant Yount, and was operating the tractor-trailer at the time with the knowledge, permission and consent of Yount, and within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of his employer's business.
Plaintiff pleaded and introduced in evidence the following two ordinances of the city of Charlotte:
'Stopping, Standing, and Parking
'(a) When signs prohibiting parking are erected on any streets no person shall park a vehicle in any such designated place.
B. A. Corbett, Jr., an employee of the Traffic Engineering Department of the city of Charlotte and a witness for the defendants, testified: 'In January 1958, on the east side of Independence Boulevard there were four 'No Parking, Stopping or Standing' signs, there were four of them placed along the east side between Elizabeth and Fifth Streets. ' He testified on cross-examination in respect to these four signs:
Defendant Dover testified on direct examination: ' He testified on cross-examination: ' Dover had gone across the highway to eat breakfast, as he had not eaten for about ten hours.
According to defendants' evidence the lanes for northbound traffic had the following widths: The lane next to the white or black line on the middle of the Boulevard dividing the north and south lanes eleven feet, the middle lane twelve feet, the lane next to the curb, ten feet.
Negligence on the part of the defendants is manifest on the record. Defendants in their brief make no contention to the contrary, but argue that plaintiff should have been nonsuited for the reason that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Burris, 196
...enacted in the interest of public safety and to promote the orderly and safe flow of traffic is negligence per se. Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E.2d 825, and authorities there cited. In addition, plaintiff's evidence would permit a jury to find that defendants parked or stopped the......
-
Melton v. Crotts
...supra; Keener v. Beal, supra; Thomas v. Thurston Motor Lines, supra; Privette v. Lewis, 255 N.C. 612, 122 S.E.2d 381; Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E.2d 825; Burchette v. Distributing Co., 243 N.C. 120, 90 S.E.2d 232; Chaffin v. Brame, 233 N.C. 377, 64 S.E.2d If the jury should find......
-
Watt v. Crews, 472
...We hold that the court below properly overruled this appellant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit as to the plaintiff. Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E.2d 825; Scarborough v. Ingram, 256 N.C. 87, 122 S.E.2d Appeal of additional defendant William O'Brien O'Brien assigns as error the ......
-
LaFalce v. Wolcott
...a matter of law); Dunn v. Herring, 67 N.C.App. 306, 313 S.E.2d 22 (1984) (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT IMPROper). In Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E.2d 825 (1959), plaintiff changed lanes because the car ahead of him had signaled to turn. A tractor-trailer was stopped about forty fee......