Griffin v. Ward, 697

• Decision Date: 11 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 697,697
• Citation: Griffin v. Ward, 148 S.E.2d 133, 267 N.C. 296 (N.C. 1966)
• Parties: Judy Faye GRIFFIN v. Willie D. WARD.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 133

148 S.E.2d 133

267 N.C. 296

Judy Faye GRIFFIN v.Willie D.WARD.

No. 697.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 11, 1966.

Sullivan & Horne, by Kirby Sullivan and Thomas E. Horne, Southport, for plaintiffappellee.

Stevens, Burgwin, McGhee & Ryals, by Ellis L. Aycock, Wilmington, Herring, Walton, Parker & Powell, by Ray Walton, Southport, for defendantappellant.

PLESS, Justice.

G.S. § 20--154, which provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall not stop without first seeing that he can do so in safety and that he must give a signal of his intention where the operation of other cars might be affected, is not applicable where the driver has no choice.Here the defendant was confronted with a situation which demanded that he stop because the line of cars in front of him had done so and he could not turn left because of oncoming traffic.It had been raining and the windows of his car were up so he could give no hand signal, so that his negligence, if any, is based upon the statement of the plaintiff that she saw no brake lights burning on the rear of his car.Even so, it may be doubted that this was the proximate cause of the collision.If the plaintiff can survive the motions for nonsuit upon the questionable contention that the defendant was actionably negligent, we have no serious problem in holding that upon the plaintiff's evidence, and upon all the evidence, the plaintiff could not survive the issue of contributory negligence.

In Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804, this Court said:

'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', citing Wall v. Bain, 222 N.C. 375, 23 S.E.2d 330, 333, where this 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.'

The following excerpts from Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E.2d 355, are applicable here:

'The driver of an automobile is not required to anticipate negligence on the part of others, and his failure to do so does not constitute an act of negligence.* * * But he is under the duty to keep a reasonably careful lookout.* * * 'The requirements of prudent operation are not necessarily satisfied when the defendant'looks' either preceding or during the operation of his car.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.''

'The plaintiff's negligence, to defeat a recovery in an action like the present, need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury.It is enough if it contribute to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them.'Moore v. Boone, 231 N.C. 494, 57 S.E.2d 783.

There is little, if any, conflict in the evidence for the...