Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co, 603.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 603.,603. |
| Citation | 217 N.C. 693,9 S.E.2d 395 |
| Parties | JONES et al. v. RANEY CHEVROLET CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Luther Hamilton, Special Judge.
Action by the Fidelity & Casualty Company, in the name of Jerry A. Jones, against the Raney Chevrolet Company to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligence. From an adverse judgment plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
Poisson & Campbell, of Wilmington, and J. A. Jones, of Kinston, for plaintiffs, appellants.
E. K. Bryan and R. S. McClelland, both of Wilmington, for defendant, appellee.
This is an action brought by an insurance carrier in the name of an employee by reason of having been subrogated to the rights of an employer by payment of compensation for which the employer was liable under the North Carolina Workmen's Com-pensation Act against a person other than the employer, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Sec. 11, Chap. 120, P.L.1929; Sec. 1, Chap. 449, P.L.1933. N.C.Code of 1935 (Michie), § 8081 (r).
This case was before us at the Spring Term, 1938, and a judgment of the Superior Court sustaining a demurrer upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was reversed. 213 N.C. 775, 197 S.E. 757.
Notwithstanding in the trial below there was evidence to support the principal allegations of the complaint, the Court sustained the motion of the defendant for a judgment as in case of nonsuit lodged when the plaintiffs had introduced their evidence and rested their case, and entered judgment accordingly, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed, assigning errors.
There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff Jerry A. Jones was an invited guest in an automobile, that because of defective brakes the automobile was wrecked resulting in injury to the plaintiff, that the defendant Raney Chevrolet Company was an automobile dealer and sold the automobile, second hand, to the owner thereof with whom the plaintiff was riding, and that the dealer represented to the owner that the automobile was equipped with good, reliable brakes when it knew, or by the exercise of due care could have known, that the automobile had defective brakes, and that the defects would naturally result in the brakes becoming applied in an emergency manner in the ordinary operation of the automobile, causing the operator to lose control over the automobile.
"A retail dealer who takes a used truck in trade and undertakes to repair and recondition it for resale for use upon the public highways owes a duty to the public to use reasonable care in the making of tests for the purpose of detecting defects which would make the truck a menace to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branch v. Dempsey, 194
...by a defendant's shop foreman, 'some time after the wreck,' that a certain type of brake had given trouble. Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 217 N.C. 693, 9 S.E.2d 395. Accord, Dressel v. Parr Cement Co., 80 CalApp.2d 536, 181 P.2d 962. Certainly this was narrative of a past occurrence. The ag......
-
Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
...Geissell & Richardson, 179 N.C. 657, 103 S.E. 392; Chatham v. C. C. Disher Chevrolet Co., 215 N.C. 88, 1 S.E.2d 117; Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 217 N.C. 693, 9 S.E.2d 395. In Hall v. Geissell, supra, 179 N.C. at bottom of page 659, 103 S.E. at page 393, it is said: '* * * the parol evide......
-
Couch v. Hutcherson
... ... Yazoo City v. Loggins, 145 Miss. 793, 110 So ... 833(3); Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 217 N.C. 693, ... 9 S.E.2d 395(4); Yarbrough v ... ...
-
Zocco v. US Dept. of Army, 89-109-CIV-3-BR.
... ... Supp. 603 does not apply the § 97-19 bar when the injured employee is employed by ... ...