Liverman v. Cline, 30.
Citation | 192 S.E. 849,212 N.C. 43 |
Decision Date | 22 September 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 30.,30. |
Parties | LIVERMAN. v. CLINE. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County; G. V. Cowper, Special Judge.
Action by J. A. Liverman against F. D. Cline. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendant.
The defendant is a road contractor and in July, 1936, was engaged in building an asphalt road from Camden to Shiloh in Camden county. This road connects with state highway No. 30, a much-traveled highway.
On the night of July 13, 1936, while traveling on said highway, plaintiff ran his automobile into the rear of a truck operated at the time by Ralph Gibbs. Gibbs was hauling sand at the time. He testifies without contradiction: It is in evidence that Ralph Gibbs, a truck driver, was on the defendant's pay roll as asphalt hauler, being paid by the hour, but was not paid by the defendant for hauling sand. As asphalt hauler he worked only in the daytime and not at night. It seems that the work of hauling sand from a nearby pit to defendant's asphalt plant was separate and distinct from that of hauling asphalt from the plant to the road construction project.
It is not in evidence as to who owned the truck Gibbs was driving. Clyde Mungo, who was likewise hauling sand that night, testifies:
LeRoy Chandler testifies:
The only evidence of negligence in the operation of the truck driven by Gibbs is that its rear light was not lighted at the time plaintiff ran into it. This evidence is strongly contradicted, and defendant elicited from plaintiff, on cross-examination, testimony tending to show that he was contributorily negligent.
From judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.
J. Henry LeRoy, Jr., and Thompson & Wilson, all of Elizabeth City, for appellant.
Charles Whedbee, of Hertford, and John H. Hall, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.
Without debating the question of plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence, we think the judgment of nonsuit must be upheld on the ground that the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barber v. Minges, 383.
......Ridout v. Rose's 5-10-25¢ Stores, 205 N.C. 423, 171 S.E. 642; McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Mfg. Co, 217 N.C. 351, 8 S.E.2d 219. See Liverman v. Cline, 212 N.C. 43, 192 S.E. 849. The relation was after the similitude of invitor and invitee or more nearly that of host and guest. White v. ......
-
Barber v. Minges
...... Ridout v. Rose's 5- 10-25¢. Stores, 205 N.C. 423, 171 S.E. 642; McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Mfg. Co., 217 N.C. 351, 8 S.E.2d 219. See. Liverman v. Cline, 212 N.C. 43, 192 S.E. 849. The. relation was after the similitude of invitor and invitee or. more nearly that of host and guest. White ......
-
McLamb v. Beasley
...... transaction out of which the injury arose", the. plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. Liverman v. Cline, 212 N.C. 43, 192 S.E. 849; Van Landingham v. Sewing Machine Co., 207 N.C. 355, 177 S.E. 126;. Jeffrey v. Osage Mfg. Co., 197 N.C. ......
-
Carter v. Thurston Motor Lines Inc
......Nissen, supra; Gurley v. Southern Power Co., 172 N.C. 690, 90 S.E. 943; Mason v. Texas Co., 206 N.C. 805, 175 S.E. 291; Overman v. Cline, 212 N.C. 43, 192 S.E. 849; Cole v. Asheville Funeral Home, 207 N.C. 271, 176 S.E. 553; Van Landing-ham v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 207 N.C. ......