Lawing v. Landis
| Decision Date | 11 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 310,310 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Loyd L. LAWING, Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Wesley Weaver, Deceased, v. T. E. LANDIS and C. E. Landis, Trading as Landis Motors; Henry Click Truitt; P. & G. Chair Company, Inc.; Grady Carroll, Jr.; Edna Wrenn Scarlett; William Lafayette Abernethy; Houston Donnell Havnear; Abernethy's, Inc.; and Edna Wrenn Scarlett, Administratrix of the Estate of Russell Wayne Scarlett, Deceased. John E. HOUSER, Administrator of the Estate of Douglass Evon Houser, Deceased, v. T. E. LANDIS and C. E. Landis, Trading as Landis Motors; Henry Click Truitt; P. & G. Chair Company, Inc.; Grady Carroll, Jr.; Edna Wrenn Scarlett; William Lafayette Abernethy; Houston Donnell Havnear; Abernethy's, Inc.; and Edna Wrenn Scariett, Administratrix of the Estate of Russell Wayne Scariett, Deceased. |
Patton & Ervin, Morganton, for defendant Edna Wrenn Scarlett, Individually and Edna Wrenn Scarlett, Administratrix, appellee.
Patrick, Harper & Dixon, by Charles D. Dixon and Bailey Patrick, Hickory, for defendants T. E. Landis and C. E. Landis, Trading as Landis Motors, and Henry Click Truitt, appellees.
Emmett C. Willis, James C. Smathers, Hickory, for defendants William Lafayette Abernethy, Houston Donnell Havnear, and Abernethy's, Inc., appellees.
The record, consisting of almost 300 pages, indicates the trial was carefully conducted both by the presiding judge and the participating attorneys. The judgments of nonsuit as to the Chair Company and its agent, Carroll, were entirely proper. In fact, the plaintiffs do not challenge the propriety of these judgments.
The plaintiffs do contend, however, the court committed prejudicial error by '(1) giving all the defendants the benefit of a charge on sudden emergency, and (2) assuming the defendants were entitled to the sudden emergency charge, did the court properly instruct the jury as to what facts would constitute the emergency.'
The evidence disclosed a fog of such extreme density as to obscure or almost blot out lights of a motor vehicle except for a very few feet. This condition existed for only a very short distance over or near a stream on an otherwise clear night. A few minutes before, as the wrecker passed over the stream on the way to the disabled truck, there was no fog whatever on the highway. On the return, the driver entered the fog, reduced speed to 10 to 15 miles per hour, and had proceeded for 100 to 150 yards when slightly bumped by the Chevrolet, and immediately thereafter rammed by the station wagon. Evidence of unlawful speed on the part of either vehicle was lacking. Did not the presence of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory v. Lynch, 851
...sudden emergency was in accordance with prior decisions of this court. Rodgers v. Carter, 266 N.C. 564, 146 S.E.2d 806; Lawing v. Landis, 256 N.C. 677, 124 S.E.2d 877. The charge on respective duties of motorists proceeding in opposite directions is an accurate statement of the law. Anderso......
-
Bolick v. Sunbird Airlines, Inc.
...severity of the storm until just prior to landing and that moments before touchdown she faced a "wall of water." In Lawing v. Landis, 256 N.C. 677, 124 S.E.2d 877 (1962), the evidence disclosed that the highway on which defendant was travelling was suddenly enveloped in a dense fog. The def......
-
Jones v. Horton, 531
...choice of conduct but only to such choice as a person of ordinary care and prudence, similarly situated, would have made. Lawing v. Landis, 256 N.C. 677, 124 S.E.2d 877. Plaintiff's evidence makes out a prima facie case that the negligence of both Horton and Jones concurred in proximately c......
-
Abernethy v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company
...the owner and operator of the wrecker. The jury returned a verdict for them, which was affirmed on appeal. Lawing, Admr., v. Landis, 256 N.C. 677, 124 S.E.2d 877 (1962). Next to be tried was the suit by the sole surviving passenger in the Chevrolet. It resulted in a jury verdict of $10,000.......