King v. Pope
Decision Date | 06 April 1932 |
Docket Number | 101. |
Citation | 163 S.E. 447,202 N.C. 554 |
Parties | KING v. POPE. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wayne County; Cranmer, Judge.
Action by H. E. King against D. H. Pope.Judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals.
No error.
This is an action for actionable negligence, brought by plaintiff against the defendant alleging damage.The defendant denied negligence and set up the plea of contributory negligence.
The plaintiff(Horace E. King) is a mechanical engineer, about 61 years old, and lives in Goldsboro, N.C. L. S. Hadley is a merchant and lives in Wilson, N.C. D. H. (Dave) Pope lives in Raleigh, N.C.The plaintiff, King, and Hadley were going to Winston-Salem to attend the fair and a banquet to be given by Mr. Reynolds.They were invited by Pope to go in his 77 Chrysler sedan.They arrived in Winston-Salem on Tuesday night, October 7, 1931, about dark, attended the banquet, and the next day went to the fair, and left there that evening Wednesday, October 8th, just before dark.Pope was at the wheel of the car, sitting beside him was Hadley, and plaintiff was sitting on the back seat.Plaintiff describes the wreck as follows:
Plaintiff described the serious and permanent injuries he sustained; before then he was in good condition, had no physical infirmities."Hadn't taken a dose of medicine in 40 years and never sent for a doctor in my life for my own self."On cross-examination plaintiff testified, in part:
L. E. Hadley testified, in part:
There was evidence by several physicians and nurses as to the nature and extent of the injuries and suffering of the plaintiff.
The defendant offered no evidence.The plaintiff was a guest in defendant's automobile, sitting in the back seat.All the evidence was to the effect that defendant"was sober, in full possession of his faculties, and an experienced driver, was operating his motor vehicle along a road, with which he was thoroughly familiar."
The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, were as follows:
Judgment for plaintiff was rendered by the court below on the verdict.The defendant excepted to the judgment as signed, made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.The material ones and necessary facts will be considered in the opinion.
Ruark & Ruark, of Raleigh, for appellant.
J. Faison Thomson, of Goldsboro, for appellee.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, the defendant in the court below made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit.C. S. § 567.The court below overruled the motions and in this we can see no error.
All the evidence was to the effect that defendant had violated certain provisions of the Motor Vehicle Uniform Act, N.C. Code, 1931 Anno.(Michie)§ 2621 (45), in reference to reckless driving: Section 2621 (46), subds. a and b, restrictions as to speed;section 2621 (51) driving on right side of highway;sections 2621 (54),2621 (55).
The court below read to the jury the sections above of the Motor Vehicle Uniform Act, which were applicable to the facts in this case.The court defined "negligence,""proximate cause," and "contributory negligence," and gave the contentions on this issue as to negligence, and charged the jury: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Aldridge v. Hasty
...412; James v. Carolina Coach Company, 207 N.C. 742, 178 S.E. 607; Whitaker v. Carpenter Motor Car Company, 197 N.C. 83, 147 S.E. 729; and Albritton v. Hill, 190 N.C. 429, 130 S.E. 5 (exceeding speed limit);
King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554, 163 S.E. 447, and Norfleet v. Hall, 204 N.C. 573, 169 S.E. 143 (reckless driving and speeding); Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, 226 N.C. 692, 40 S.E. 2d 345, and Gillis v. Transit Corporation, 193... -
Lambert v. Smith
...Freedman v. Hurwitz. 116 Conn. 283, 164 A. 647; Bernal v. Seitt, Tex., 313 S.W.2d 520; Roberts v. Roberts, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 55; Young v. Freeman, 108 Pa.Super. 399, 164 A. 114; Shields v. King, 207 Cal. 275, 277 P. 1043; Bell v. Proctor, 92 Ga.App. 759, 90 S.E.2d 84; Bell v. Proctor, 212 Ga. 325, 92 S.E.2d 514; Van Fleet v. Heyler, 51 Cal.App.2d 719, 125 P.2d 586;
King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554, 163 S.E. 447; McCance v. Montroy, 75... -
Baise v. Warren
...intersection he does not have a clear, uninterrupted view upon all of the highways entering such intersection for a distance of 200 feet from such intersection." In King Pope, decided April 6, 1932, and reported in
202 N.C. 554, 163 S.E. 447, 449, the Carolina court, again construing the statute here under review, "In Godfrey Coach Co., 201 N.C. at page 267, 159 S.E. 412, 413, speaking to the subject, we find: The violation of a statute, intended and designed to prevent injury... -
Jackson v. Jackson, 6911SC94
...This, if nothing else, saves the case from a nonsuit.' 'If the defendant's conduct was wilful and wanton, the plea of contributorily negligence could not avail him, and he would not, under such circumstances, be entitled to a nonsuit.'
King v. Pope, Supra. We hold that the present case is governed by those North Carolina cases which have held that the question of contributory negligence on the part of a passenger is a matter for the jury to determine. We have considered the evidencebeing intoxicated. The Court held that the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was properly left to the jury because there was some evidence of willful and wanton conduct by the defendant. In King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554, 163 S.E. 447, the Court held that the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was properly left to the jury because there was some evidence of willful and wanton conduct. (There was evidence that the defendant continued...