Daisy v. Yost

• Decision Date: 06 December 2016
• Docket Number: No. COA16-324,COA16-324
• Citation: 250 N.C.App. 530,794 S.E.2d 364
• Parties: William L. DAISY, Plaintiff, v. Beulah Lester YOST, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

250 N.C.App. 530
794 S.E.2d 364

William L. DAISY, Plaintiff,
v.
Beulah Lester YOST, Defendant.

No. COA16-324

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

Carruthers & Roth, PA., Greensboro, by Richard L. Vanore, Norman F. Klick, Jr., and Mark K. York, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Law Office of William T. Corbett, Jr. PLLC, Mooresville, by William T. Corbett, Jr., for the Defendant-Appellee.

DILLON, Judge.

250 N.C.App. 531

I. Background

William L. Daisy ("Plaintiff") and Beulah Lester Yost ("Defendant") were involved in an automobile collision in Greensboro. The uncontested evidence at trial established that the collision occurred as follows: Plaintiff was approaching an intersection at the posted speed limit intending to continue straight. Defendant was approaching the same intersection from the opposite direction intending to make a left-hand turn across Plaintiff's lane of travel.

When Plaintiff arrived at the intersection, his light had turned from green to yellow. When Defendant arrived at the intersection in her left turn lane, her light had turned from a flashing yellow arrow to a solid yellow arrow. As Plaintiff proceeded straight through the intersection , Defendant made a left turn across Plaintiff's lane of travel, causing the front of Defendant's turning vehicle

794 S.E.2d 366

to strike the side of Plaintiff's vehicle, pushing it into a light post at the corner of the intersection.

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries and property damage resulting from the collision.¹ Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence. The trial court denied the motion and submitted the issue to the jury. The jury returned a verdict finding that (1) the collision was proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant, but that (2) Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the collision. Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court entered judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), and alternatively, motion for a new trial. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion, and Plaintiff timely appealed.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Plaintiff makes a number of arguments, including the argument that there was no evidence to support the jury instruction on the issue of Plaintiff's contributory negligence. We conclude that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to warrant a jury instruction

250 N.C.App. 532

on the issue of contributory negligence and therefore reverse the ruling of the trial court on this issue. Based on this conclusion, we need not address Plaintiff's remaining arguments.

Contributory negligence is defined as "negligence on the part of the plaintiff which joins, simultaneously or successively, with the negligence of the defendant alleged in the complaint to produce the injury of which the plaintiff complains." Jackson v. McBride , 270 N.C. 367, 372, 154 S.E.2d 468, 471 (1967).

With respect to contributory negligence as a matter of law, "[t]he general rule is that a directed verdict for [the moving party] on the ground of contributory negligence may only be granted when the evidence taken in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party] establishes the [non-moving party's] negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference or conclusion may be drawn therefrom." Clark v. Bodycombe , 289 N.C. 246, 251, 221 S.E.2d 506, 510 (1976). "If there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the nonmovant's case, the motion for directed verdict should be denied." Whisnant v. Herrera , 166 N.C.App. 719, 722, 603 S.E.2d 847, 850 (2004). The non-moving party must be given "the benefit of every inference which may...