Godfrey v. Queen City Coach Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1931
• Docket Number: 486.
• Citation: 159 S.E. 412,201 N.C. 264
• Parties: GODFREY v. QUEEN CITY COACH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

159 S.E. 412

201 N.C. 264

GODFREY v. QUEEN CITY COACH CO.

No. 486.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

July 2, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Sink, Special Judge.

Action by L. W. Godfrey, administrator, against the Queen City Coach Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Ordinarily whether violation of safety statute or ordinance is proximate cause of injury is for jury.

See also, 200 N.C. 41, 156 S.E. 139.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged wrongful death caused by collision between an automobile in which plaintiff's intestate was riding and one of defendant's busses.

On Saturday night, December 28, 1928, plaintiff's intestate was a guest in his brother's Essex automobile going from Charlotte in the direction of Monroe. The defendant's bus was running from Monroe to Charlotte. The night was dark and misty. The road was wet and slippery. The Godfrey car was traveling behind a car driven by one W. E. Kiker, and was attempting for the second time to pass the Kiker car near the crest of a hill and near the center of a 55-degree curve when the lights of the bus were observed at the other end of the curve, 250 or 275 feet away, "not in the highway but out in the field to the left." The bus was running from 35 to 45 miles an hour. Realizing that he would not be able to execute the pass, the driver of the Godfrey car, plaintiff's intestate's brother, put on his brakes so as again to fall in behind the Kiker car. The sudden application of the brakes caused the Godfrey car to "turn kinder angling to the left, *** about a 45-degree angle across the highway in front of the approaching bus."

The bus was fully 200 feet away when the Godfrey car skidded across the highway. Looking in the direction the bus was going, "one could not see any distance ahead on account of the deep curve in the road and the thickly-settled houses on the left-hand side."

The driver of the bus was within 35 feet of the Godfrey car before he saw it. He pulled as far to the right as he could and attempted to stop, but was unable to avoid a collision. The front wheel of the bus hit the Godfrey car right at the cowl and jammed it into the embankment on the right-hand side of the road, going in the direction of Charlotte (the left-hand side going in the opposite direction). Plaintiff's intestate died a few hours thereafter from injuries sustained in the wreck.

The alleged negligence on the part of the defendant is that of excessive speed, under the circumstances, and failure to keep a proper lookout.

Issues were submitted to the jury at the May term, 1930, and answered in favor of the plaintiff. The verdict was set aside by the trial court as a matter of law, which order was vacated on appeal. 200 N.C. 41, 156 S.E. 139.

Judgment on the verdict was entered at the January term, 1931, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

J. Laurence Jones and N. A. Townsend, both of Charlotte, for appellant.

Stewart & Bobbitt, of Charlotte, for appellee.

STACY C.J.

The discretionary power of the superior court to set aside the verdict in this case was not invoked, either at the trial term or following the first appeal here. Compare Allen v. Gooding, 174 N.C. 271, 93 S.E. 740, Lancaster v. Bland, 168 N.C. 377, 84 S.E. 529. The only point presented is the legal sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury.

The defendant's evidence, standing alone, would seem to bring the case within the decision in Burke v. Coach Co., 198 N.C. 8, 150 S.E. 636. But viewing the plaintiff's evidence with the liberality required on demurrer, we think the question of proximate cause was one for the jury, under the principles announced in Earwood v. R. R., 192 N.C. 27, 133 S.E. 180; Albritton v. Hill, ...