Howard v. Melvin, 175
| Decision Date | 14 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
| Citation | 138 S.E.2d 238,262 N.C. 569 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Clyde Jim HOWARD v. Wiley Roger MELVIN. |
James F. Chesnutt and Miles B. Fowler, Clinton, for plaintiff appellant.
Nance, Barrington, Collier & Singleton, Fayetteville, for defendant appellee.
In approaching the intersection and at the moment of collision, defendant was proceeding north in his right (the east) traffic lane of NC #242. NC #242, the dominant highway, 'was 21 feet 9 inches wide and marked with a center line.' The collision occurred when the front wheels of the truck 'were about center way of the north lane.' No part of the truck had actually gone through the intersection.
Plaintiff's allegations, summarized, are that defendant was negligent in that he (1) failed to keep a proper lookout; (2) failed to yield the right of way; (3) operated his car at unlawful and excessive speed; and (4) failed to decrease speed when approaching the intersection.
The only witness who testified he saw defendant's car prior to and at the moment of collision was General Lee Willis. He was standing in front of his blacksmith shop located (approximately 75 feet east of NC #242) in the area at the southeast corner of the intersection. Willis testified: Willis also testified: With reference to the damage to the vehicles: Willis testified 'the righthand front wheel (of the truck) was knocked out from under it' and the left front of defendant's car 'was torn up, all the way back.'
The evidence is silent as to skid marks.
According to all the evidence, plaintiff stopped the truck at the stop sign; and defendant, when approaching the intersection, had a clear view of the stop sign and of eastbound traffic approaching the stop sign and the intersection.
W. C. Pate, whose testimony relates primarily to conditions at the intersection, testified: 'There is a stop sign on the west side of 242 at the southwest corner of the intersection which I measured to be 38 feet from the edge of the pavement on the west side.' Plaintiff testified there was a ditch and a wide shoulder between the stop sign and the road; and, although he had not measured it, the stop sign, in his opinion, was not '38 feet from the pavement.' Plaintiff testified he believed the distance between the stop sign and the main road to be 19 feet.
The reciprocal rights and duties of motorists when approaching an intersection from dominant and servient highways, particularly in relation to G.S. § 20-158(a), have been often stated. Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, 233 N.C. 673, 65 S.E.2d 361; Blalock v. Hart, 239 N.C. 475, 80 S.E.2d 373.
The evidence discloses plaintiff stopped the truck at the stop sign, started again and proceeded slowly to and across the traffic lanes of NC #242. This evidence affords a basis for the contention that defendant had reasonable ground to assume that plaintiff knew he was approaching an intersecting dominant highway and would keep his truck under control and stop again before entering upon the traffic lanes of NC #242. However, we need not determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that negligence on the part of defendant was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bigelow v. Johnson
...Presnell v. Payne, 272 N.C. 11, 157 S.E.2d 601 (1967); Griffin v. Ward, 267 N.C. 296, 148 S.E.2d 133 (1966); Howard v. Melvin, 262 N.C. 569, 138 S.E.2d 238 (1964). For the reasons stated above, the opinion of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. 1 Bigelow's......
-
Raper v. Byrum, 32
...a contributing cause, and is sufficient to bar the plaintiff's recovery in this action. Badders v. Lassiter, supra; Howard v. Melvin, 262 N.C. 569, 138 S.E.2d 238. G.S. § 20-158(a) makes it unlawful for the driver of a vehicle upon the servient highway at an intersection, at which a stop si......
-
Derrick v. Ray
...cases, where the courts found contributory negligence as a matter of law, reveals distinguishing characteristics. In Howard v. Melvin, 262 N.C. 569, 138 S.E.2d 238 (1964), the plaintiff believed he stopped 19 feet from the main road before attempting to cross the intersection. In Edwards v.......
-
Warren v. Lewis, 449
...highway in safety to himself and to others on the highway. G.S. § 20--158; Raper v. Byrum, 265 N.C. 269, 144 S.E.2d 38; Howard v. Melvin, 262 N.C. 569, 138 S.E.2d 238. By admitting he entered without seeing the defendant's approach from the west, he negligently failed to see a danger, to hi......