Hunter v. Bruton
| Decision Date | 29 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 528. |
| Citation | 5 S.E.2d 719,216 N.C. 540 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. BRUTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Gover & Covington, of Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
G T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin, both of Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.
This is an action to recover damage for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was driving one car and the defendant was driving the other. The plaintiff's car was being driven in a southerly direction and the defendant's car in a northerly direction. The plaintiff's car struck a slick place in the highway which caused it to run to its left across the highway, to strike a telephone pole on its left side of the highway, and to turn around and come to a stop in the cornfield on its left side of the highway. The defendant turned his car to his right off of the highway and struck the plaintiff's car. The evidence is conflicting as to how long the plaintiff's car had been at a stand still before it was struck by the defendant's car. The plaintiff's evidence tends to show between a minute and a minute and a half, and the defendant's evidence at most "a fraction of a second."
The plaintiff's contention is that the defendant was negligent in running off of the highway on his (defendant's) right side thereof and striking the plaintiff's car which had cleared the road and come to rest in time for the defendant to have remained on the highway and driven by him without colliding.
The defendant's contention is that he saw the plaintiff's car approaching him from the opposite direction, saw it leave its right side of the highway, cross over on its left side and approach close enough to defendant's car to cause him to think his car would collide with plaintiff's car if he remained on the highway and that he ran his car off of the highway to his (defendant's) right in an endeavor to avoid a collision, and that plaintiff's car left the highway on plaintiff's left side thereof in front of the defendant's car and thereby caused the collision, with its consequent damage.
The question presented by these conflicting contentions, both of which are supported by evidence, is whether the defendant was negligent in leaving the highway on his right and thereby causing the collision.
The following excerpt from his Honor's charge upon the first issue is made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Smoky Mountain Stages
... ... constitutes the backlog of the doctrine. Miller v ... Southern R. Co., 205 N.C. 17, 169 S.E. 811; Hunter ... v. Bruton, 216 N.C. 540, 5 S.E.2d 719. It presupposes ... negligence on the part ... [35 S.E.2d 340] ... of defendant and contributory ... ...
-
Farrell v. Weinard, 7325.
...Am.Jur. 901. "Peril and the discovery of such peril in time to avoid injury constitutes the backlog of the doctrine. * * * Hunter v. Bruton, 216 N.C. 540, 5 S.E.2d 719. It presupposes negligence on the part of defendant and contributory negligence on the part of the party injured or killed ......
-
Williams v. Boulerice, 36
...a question for the jury. Rouse v. Jones, 254 N.C. 575, 119 S.E.2d 628; Lamm v. Gardner, supra; Simmons v. Rogers, supra; Hunter v. Bruton, 216 N.C. 540, 5 S.E.2d 719; Woods v. Freeman, 213 N.C. 314, 195 S.E. 812; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N.C. 117, 179 S.E. 428. The true and ultimate test of Ceci......