Holland v. Strader

• Decision Date: 08 November 1939
• Docket Number: 387.
• Citation: 5 S.E.2d 311,216 N.C. 436
• Parties: HOLLAND v. STRADER et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E.2d 311

216 N.C. 436

HOLLAND v. STRADER et al.

No. 387.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 8, 1939

This was an action for damages for a personal injury resulting from an automobile collision alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that on October 29, 1938, plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile, belonging to and driven by her sister, en route to Chapel Hill to witness a football game; that approaching Chapel Hill from the West there were a number of automobiles being driven in same direction; that the automobile of defendant Strader, then being operated by defendant Mayes, was immediately in front of the car in which plaintiff was riding, at a distance of two or three car lengths, both cars travelling thirty or forty miles per hour that defendants' car stopped suddenly without warning and without any signal being given of intention so to do, and that the car in which plaintiff was riding, in spite of application of brakes and attempt to turn aside, collided with defendants' car, causing injury to plaintiff. The defendants' evidence tended to show that there was a continuous line of cars extending for miles East and West of the point of collision with only a short space between cars; that along this line the cars were frequently stopping and starting due to the congestion and slackening of the line of cars in front; that at the point of collision there was a sudden stop of cars in front of defendants which caused the driver also to stop, and plaintiff's car struck the left rear end of defendants' car; that the collision would have been avoided if the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding had kept proper lookout and her car under control that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding was either following too closely, or had time, after seeing the cars in front stopping, within which to apply brakes and stop. The defendants contended that the negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding was the sole proximate cause of the injury.

Upon appropriate issues submitted to the jury, there was verdict for plaintiff, and from judgment thereon the defendants appealed.

Adams Dearman & Winberry, of Statesville, for appellants.

Hoyle C. Ripple, of Winston-Salem, and Scott & Collier, of Statesville, for appellee.

DEVIN Justice.

The appellants assign as error the denial by the court below of their motion for judgment of nonsuit, but in this we find no error. The plaintiff's evidence, taken in the light most favorable to her, affords substantial basis for submission of the case to the jury, and supports the verdict. True, according to defendants' evidence, a different aspect of the circumstances was presented tending to relieve the defendants of liability for plaintiff's injury, but the decision was a matter within the exclusive province of the jury. Smith v. Coach Co., 214 N.C. 314, 199 S.E. 90.

Defendants excepted to the judge's charge, in that, after reading to the jury section 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1937 (Chap. 407, Public Laws 1937), he instructed the jury, if they found by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendants violated this statute, that would constitute negligence, and if they further found by the same degree of proof that such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, to answer the issue of negligence in her favor. The section referred to requires the driver of a motor vehicle, before stopping on the highway, to see that such movement can be made in safety, and, where the movement of another vehicle may be thereby affected, to give a signal plainly visible to the driver of the other vehicle, indicating his intention to...