Manheim v. Blue Bird Taxi Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1939
• Docket Number: No. 681.,681.
• Citation: 214 N.C. 680,200 S.E. 382
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MANHEIM. v. BLUE BIRD TAXI CORPORATION et al.

214 N.C. 680

200 S.E. 382

MANHEIM.

v.BLUE BIRD TAXI CORPORATION et al.

No. 681.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; E. C. Bivens, Judge.

Action by Grover Manheim, by his next friend, ' L. W. Manheim, against the Blue Bird Taxi Corporation and another to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff and the named defendants appeal.

No error.

Jas. MacClamroch and A. C. Davis, both of Greensboro, for appellant.

Leonidas Herbin and Frazier & Frazier, all of Greensboro, for appellee.

SCHENCK, Justice.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendants. The defendants' motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit were denied, the usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage were submitted and answered in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment predicated upon the verdict, the corporate defendant appealed, assigning errors.

The assignment of error most seriously pressed on appeal is that to the refusal of the Court to allow motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit lodged when plaintiff had rested his case and renewed at the close of all the evidence. C.S. § 567. In determining whether the Court erred in refusing to allow this motion we must give the evidence such construction as is most favorable to the plaintiff. Given this interpretation the evidence tends to establish the following facts:

The plaintiff was a minor about nine years of age. The appellant, through its agent W. C. Carnell, was operating a taxicab on North Elm Street in the City of Greensboro on June 19, 1937. About 10:40 A. M. on said date the plaintiff attempted to cross North Elm Street at the intersection of Bishop Street with North Elm Street, and when he had gotten about two feet beyond the centre line of North Elm Street he was struck and injured by the taxicab of the appellant proceeding in a southern direction on said street. There were cars parked on both sides of North Elm Street, and the distance between the cars on one side of the street to the cars on the other side thereof was about 35 feet. The plaintiff came from behind a car on the east side of the street, paused, and looked up and down the street, north and south, and saw no car approaching from either direction, and then proceeded across the street and was struck by the appellant's taxicab when he had proceeded about 19¹/₂ feet across the street, which took him about two feet beyond the centre line of the street. The plaintiff did not see the taxicab before he was struck. The taxicab was being driven from 40 to 45 miles per hour, and left skid marks on the street about 43 feet long when it was stopped. The intersection of North Elm Street and Bishop Street is in a business section of the City of Greensboro and the traffic on North Elm Street in this location is heavy.

The appellant does not seriously contend that there was insufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury upon the first issue involving the actionable negligence of the defendant, but does seriously contend that the evidence establishes the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. While the appellant's evidence tends...