Grimm v. Watson
| Decision Date | 13 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 603,603 |
| Citation | 62 S.E.2d 538,233 N.C. 65 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GRIMM, v. WATSON. |
Seawell & Seawell, Carthage, for defendant, appellant.
Spence & Boyette, Carthage, for plaintiff, appellee.
The defendant reserved exceptions to the refusal of his motions for a compulsory nonsuit under G.S. § 1-183.
Under the statute codified as G.S. § 20-154, any person who undertakes to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway must exercise reasonable care to ascertain that such movement can be made in safety before he turns either to the right or the left from a direct line. Besides he is required by the same statute to signal his intention to turn in the prescribed manner and for the specified distance before changing his course 'whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement. ' A motorist violates G.S. § 20-154 and in consequence is negligent as a matter of law if he fails to observe either of these statutory precautions in changing the course of his vehicle upon the highway, and his negligence in such respect is actionable if it proximately causes injury to another. Cooley v. Baker, 231 N.C. 533, 58 S.E.2d 115. This being so, the issue of whether the driver of the defendant's bus was guilty of actionable negligence was rightly adjudged to be a question of fact for the determination of the jury.
The brings us to the defendant's contention that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
The plea of contributory negligence in this case is simply this: (1) That the plaintiff drove his automobile upon the highway at an excessive speed and without keeping a proper lookout; and (2) that such specific acts of negligence proximately contributed to the plaintiff's damage and injury. The controlling rule on this phase of the litigation is elaborated in Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E.2d 307, 309, where this language is used:
The testimony of the plaintiff at the trial did not establish the facts indispensable to the defendant's plea of contributory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Wooten
...the defendant. Bruce v. O'Neal Flying Service, 234 N.C. 79, 66 S.E.2d 312; Rollison v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 99, 63 S.E.2d 190; Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538; Dalrymple v. Sinkoe, 230 N.C. 453, 53 S.E.2d 437; Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E.2d 307; Bevan v. Carter, 210 N.C. 29......
-
Riley v. United States, 1:16CV127
...no potentially viable Fourth Amendment claim. Consequently, omission of this issue on appeal was reasonable. 9. See, e.g., Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 67 (1950) ("Under the statute codified as G.S. s 20-154, any person who undertakes to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway must exercise r......
-
Simmons v. Rogers
...per se and such negligence is actionable if it proximately causes injury to another. Ervin v. Cannon Mills Co., supra; Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538; Tarrant v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 221 N.C. 390, 20 S.E.2d If we consider all the evidence in this case, including that of the......
-
Tart v. Register, 530
...in such respect is actionable if it proximately causes injury to another. Mitchell v. White, 256 N.C. 437, 124 S.E.2d 137; Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538. "Performing the requirement of giving appropriate * * * signals does not necessarily relieve the driver of a motor vehicle ......