Dickerson v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 24 January 1934
• Docket Number: 499.
• Citation: 172 S.E. 402,205 N.C. 770
• Parties: DICKERSON et al. v. REYNOLDS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

172 S.E. 402

205 N.C. 770

DICKERSON et al. v. REYNOLDS.

No. 499.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 24, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.

Separate actions by Roosevelt Dickerson and by Mary Lou Dickerson against Mrs. Mamie Reynolds, consolidated and tried together. From judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

No error.

Inferences from evidence are for jury.

Where more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, it is properly submitted to the jury.

Civil actions to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiffs, and to the car in which they were riding, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, and as the several causes of action arose out of the same collision, or the same state of facts, for convenience, they were consolidated and tried together. Fleming v Holleman, 190 N.C. 449, 130 S.E. 171; Baker v. R Co., 205 N.C. 329, 171 S.E. 342.

The essential facts are these: On October 22, 1932, plaintiffs were injured, and the car in which they were riding was damaged, in a collision with defendant's automobile operated at the time by Walter Aiken, defendant's chauffeur. For present purposes, it is conceded the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the alleged negligence of Walter Aiken, but it is contended he was not the defendant's agent, or driving for the defendant, at the time of the collision.

The question of agency or liability is to be determined solely from the testimony of the defendant, who was called as a witness by the plaintiffs.

Her evidence is to the effect that she is the mother of Robert R Reynolds; that she lives just outside the city of Asheville; that Walter Aiken was in her employ as butler, chauffeur, and general utility man during the fall of 1932; that on the day in question, having received word her son's wife was critically ill, she immediately telephoned her son, who was away from home on a speaking tour, and acquainted him with the fact of his wife's illness. "In consequence of this message I sent the car with Walter Aiken to meet him after he got through speaking at some place near Lexington so he could get home earlier than he would if he had to go to Greensboro to take the train."

The defendant further testified: "At that time, my son was making his home in Asheville. He maintained an apartment there. He did not live with me just at that time. He was of legal age, 47 years old, and occasionally came and spent some time with me, but on this occasion he was not living with me. His regular home was my home. Prior to October, 1932, he had made his home for a long time with me, but just at that time he was living in the city. I had permitted or allowed my son for his convenience, to use my automobile as a member of the family. He had made use of it occasionally for pleasure but not regularly. He was not using my car at the time to travel from one place to another in the State. With reference to whose mission the car was on-- well, the nurse had phoned my son his wife was critically ill. Naturally, he was nervous and excited and wanted to get home as quickly as possible. He phoned and asked me to send Walter down to some point near Lexington--I have forgotten the town--with the car. My son was the one who phoned...