Hall v. Poteat, 737
| Decision Date | 15 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 737,737 |
| Citation | 257 N.C. 458,125 S.E.2d 924 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | David HALL, Plaintiff, v. Zelma Farrish POTEAT and Robert L. Satterfield, Guardian ad Litem of Charlie Jennings, Jr., Original Defendants, and Donald M. Terrell, by his Guardian ad Litem, Mrs. Evelyn Terrell, Additional Defendant. |
Booth, Osteen, Upchurch & Fish, Greensboro, for plaintiff appellant.
Haywood & Denny and George W. Miller, Jr., Durham, for original defendants appellees.
The rule is well established that judgment of nonsuit is proper when there is a fatal variance between a plaintiff's allegata and probata. Proof without allegation is no better than allegation without proof. A plaintiff must make out his case secundum allegata. He cannot recover except on the case made by his pleading. Vickers v. Russell, 253 N.C. 394, 117 S.E. 2d 45; Lucas v. White, 248 N.C. 38, 102 S.E. 387; Wilkes Poultry Co. v. Equipment Co., 247 N.C. 570, 101 S.E.2d 458, and cases cited. Whether the variance is to be deemed material (fatal) must be resolved in the light of the facts of each case. Spaugh v. City of Winston-Salem, 249 N.C. 194, 197, 105 S.E.2d 610.
The ground on which the court granted the motion of original defendants for judgment of nonsuit does not appear. However, as indicated below, plaintiff's evidence tends to show a basic factual situation different from that alleged in the complaint.
The sole proximate cause of the (first) collision, according to plaintiff's positive and repeated allegations, was the fact that Jennings, without giving a proper hand or mechanical signal and without keeping a proper lookout, suddenly drove the 1952 Ford from the right-hand shoulder into the lane for westbound traffic directly into plaintiff's path when plaintiff had absolutely no time in which to stop and avoid striking the 1952 Ford. Nothing in the original complaint suggests there were no lights on the 1952 Ford or that plaintiff did not see it when it made such sudden movement from the right-hand shoulder into the lane for westbound traffic.
The amendment, permitted 'prior to the reading of the pleadings,' alleged Jennings drove the 1952 Ford 'on a public highway * * * during the nighttime without any lights on his automobile * * *.' This amendment, permitted over their objection, advised original defendants for the first time plaintiff contended there were no lights on the 1952 Ford. Be that as it may, while the amendment alleged a new specification of negligence, it did not amend in any manner plaintiff's original factual allegations as to the proximate cause of the collision.
According to plaintiff's testimony: The 1952 Ford was twenty to thirty feet in front of him, 'sitting still,' when he first saw it. It had no lights. Plaintiff 'had in mind' to pull out and pass the 1952 Ford but did not do so because a tractor-trailer, then two hundred feet away, was approaching in the lane for eastbound traffic. He decided to stop, put on his brakes and struck the rear of the 1952 Ford. 'The car (presumably plaintiff's 1959 Ford) was not damaged greatly in the first collision.'
Plaintiff's positive and repeated testimony is that the 1952 Ford was stopped, without lights, in the lane for westbound traffic when he first saw it. Nothing in his testimony supports his positive and repeated factual allegations that Jennings, without giving a proper hand or mechanical signal and without keeping a proper lookout, suddenly drove the 1952 Ford from the right-hand shoulder onto the lane for westbound traffic directly into plaintiff's path.
There was evidence the 1952 Ford, prior to the (first) collision, had been on the right shoulder. Parnell testified to statements made by defendant Jennings at the scene of the collisions. Jennings then stated, according to Parnell, that he pulled onto the right-hand shoulder where two passengers in his car got out; that his lights were on; that, when he pulled back onto the highway, he saw plaintiff's lights some two hundred to three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Abraham
-
McCrillis v. A & W Enterprises, Inc., 701
...such case there has been a failure by the plaintiff to prove the cause of action alleged in his complaint. G.S. § 1--169; Hall v. Poteat, 257 N.C. 458, 125 S.E.2d 924; Talley v. Harriss Granite Quarries Co., 174 N.C. 445, 93 S.E. 995; Wright v. Teutonia Insurance Co., 138 N.C. 488, 51 S.E. ......
- State v. Thompson, 724
- State v. Ingram