Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 382
| Decision Date | 19 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 382,382 |
| Parties | HUDSON, v. DRIVE IT YOURSELF, Inc., et al. (two cases). |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
C. M. Llewellyn and John Hugh Williams, Concord, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Hartsell & Hartsell, Concord, Brock Barkley, Charlotte, for defendant, appellant.
The defendant Drive It Yourself, Inc., assigns error in the denial by the trial court of its motion for judgment of nonsuit. The plaintiffs' actions are based upon allegations of breach of duty on the part of the appealing defendant in that it let to hire for use on the highway an automobile with defective brakes when the defendant knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that the brakes were in an unsafe condition.
A bailor for hire, while not an insurer, may be liable for personal injuries to the bailee or third persons proximately resulting from the defective condition of a rented automobile while being used by the bailee for the purpose known to be intended, if the bailor was aware of the defective condition or by reasonable care and inspection could have discovered it. 131 A.L.R. 845 (note); Trusty v. Patterson, 299 Pa. 469, 149 A. 717; Ferraro v. Taylor, 197 Minn. 5, 265 N.W. 829; Milestone System, Inc., v. Gasior, 160 Md. 131, 152 A. 810.
It is the duty of a bailor for hire of an automobile to use reasonable care to see that the automobile is in good condition when it is let out for use on the highway, and he is liable for injury to the bailee or a third person proximately resulting from a breach of this duty.
It is breach of the bailor's duty to let out an automobile for hire for use on the highway with materially defective brakes when he is aware or by the exercise of due care by reasonable inspection should have known of such defective condition.
Here, according to the facts made to appear from plaintiffs' evidence, the duty devolved upon the defendant to exercise due care, by reasonable inspection of the rented automobile before delivery for use on the public highways, to avoid injury to the user or the public from defective brakes or appliances of which defendant was aware or by reasonable diligence could have discovered at the time of letting for hire. Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 217 N.C. 693, 9 S.E.2d 395; Harward v. General Motors, 235 N.C. 88, 68 S.E.2d 855. However, he would not be responsible for a defect subsequently discovered which was not discernible by reasonable inspection at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. International Harvester Company, No. COA04-1114 (N.C. App. 8/1/2006)
...by Nashville Truck, which was in the business of leasing, and not selling, vehicles. Plaintiff relies on Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4 (1952), to address Nashville Truck's liability as lessor of the delivery truck. In Hudson, our Supreme Court ruled that the p......
-
Wilcox v. Glover Motors, Inc., 116
... ... Southern Oil Co., 259 N.C. 456, 131 S.E.2d 39; and Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4. In those cases, this ... ...
-
Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equipment Co.
...by reasonable care and inspection. See Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 187 S.E.2d 721 (1972); Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4 (1952); Products Liability Liability of the Bailor for Hire for Personal Injury Caused by Defective Goods, 51 N.C.L.Rev. 786-87 (......
-
Roberts v. William N. and Kate B. Reynolds Memorial Park
...in the vehicle of which he had knowledge or which he could have discovered by reasonable care and inspection. Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4. A motion for a directed verdict presents the question of whether, as a matter of law, the evidence offered by the plain......