Clontz v. Krimminger
| Decision Date | 02 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 244,244 |
| Citation | 116 S.E.2d 804,253 N.C. 252 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Isaac Avery CLONTZ v. N. B. KRIMMINGER, Trading and Doing Buslness as Krimminger Candy Company, and Paul Judson Smith, Original Defendants, and David Lee Stilwell, Additional Defendant. |
Sedberry, Sanders & Walker, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellee.
R. Cartwright Carmichael, Jr., Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman, Charlotte, for original defendants appellants.
Carpenter & Webb, Charlotte, for additional defendant appellee.
Of the many assignments of error set forth in the record of case on appeal, the determinative question is predicated upon exceptions to the trial court's denial of defendants' motion for judgment as of nonsuit first made at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and aptly renewed at the close of all the evidence.
Taking the evidence offered upon the trial in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving to him the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as is done when considering motion for judgment of nonsuit, this Court is of opinion that the error assigned is well taken.
Indeed it may be conceded for the purposes of considering this question that there is sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of defendant Smith to repel the motion. Thus the inquiry is narrowed to the issue of contributory negligence. In this respect it appears from the testimony of the plaintiff that he was negligent, as a matter of law, and that his negligence contributed to his injury and damage.
'The mere fact of a collision with a vehicle ahead furnishes some evidence that the following motorist was negligent as to speed or was following too closely.' 10 Blashfield's Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, Per.Ed., Vol. 10, p. 600. And in Wall v. Bain, 222 N.C. 375, 23 S.E.2d 330, 333, the Court laid down the following rule: 'It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle not merely to look, but to keep an outlook in the direction of travel; and he is held to the duty of seeing what he ought to have seen.'
It is also a general rule of law in North Carolina ' Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arvin v. McClintock
...the plaintiff's intestate was negligent, as a matter of law, and that his negligence contributed to his untimely death, Clontz v. Krimminger, N.C., 116 S.E. 2d 804, and that the trial court was correct in sustaining defendants' motion for involuntary nonsuit. 'Only when plaintiff proves him......
-
Jarrett v. Southern Ry. Co., 316
...own evidence established his contributory negligence as a matter of law. Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184; Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804; Leonard v. Garner, 253 N.C. 278, 116 S.E.2d 731; Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E.2d Each case involving a highway......
-
Clark v. Scheld
...that the following motorist was negligent as to speed, was following too closely, or failed to keep a proper lookout. Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804; Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184. However, 'The relative duties automobile drivers owe one another when they......
-
Wise v. Vincent, 357
...S.E.2d 393; Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 126 S.E.2d 62, 96 A.L.R.2d 754; Clark v. Scheld, 253 N.C. 732, 117 S.E.2d 838; Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804. There may be two or more proximate causes of an injury. These may originate from separate and distinct sources or agenc......