Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, 525
| Decision Date | 07 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 525,525 |
| Parties | MATHENY, v. CENTRAL MOTOR LINES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Covington & Lobdell, J. Laurence Jones and Guy T. Carswell, all of Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellant.
Tillett, Campbell, Craighill & Rendelman, Charlotte, for defendants, appellees.
This is a companion case to that of Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., N.C., 65 S.E.2d 361. The plaintiff in this case is the wife of J. A. Matheny and was with him in their Mercury automobile at the time it collided with defendants' truck, to the injury of both. In the case of the husband who was driving we held that the judgment of involuntary nonsuit as to him was properly allowed. The only question now posed for decision is whether the negligence of J. A. Matheny was imputable to his wife.
It was admitted that the automobile in which plaintiff and her husband were riding and being driven at the time by him was their joint property, each owning one-half interest therein as tenants in common, and the evidence disclosed that they were transporting therein household and other joint personal property to their home in Florida. On this trip the husband and wife had shared the driving, but the husband was driving at the time of the collision.
The fact that the plaintiff was coowner and occupant of the automobile, and that it was being driven at the time by her husband with her consent for the common benefit and purpose of both would seem to establish the essential elements of a joint enterprise. James v. Atlantic & E. C. R. Co., 233 N.C. 591, 65 S.E.2d 214; Albritton v. Hill, 190 N.C. 429, 130 S.E. 5; Pusey v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 181 N.C. 137, 106 S.E. 452. As such co-owner of the automobile in which she was riding, the plaintiff had equal right to direct and control its movement, and the conduct of the driver in respect thereto, and was in law chargeable with responsibility for the negligent operation of the automobile. Blashfield, sec. 2372. The control required is the legal right to control rather than actual physical control. James v. Atlantic & E. C. R. Co., supra.
It was said in Harper v. Harper, 225 N.C. 260, 34 S.E.2d 185, 190: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Painter v. Lingon
...117 A. 539; Fisch v. Waters, 136 N.J.L. 651, 57 A. (2d) 471; Harper v. Harper, 225 N.C. 260, 34 S.E. (2d) 185; Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, 233 N.C. 681, 65 S.E. (2d) 368. Defendant states that this court applied the foregoing principle in Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Zell, 118 Va. 755, 8......
- Matheny v. Central Motor Lines
-
Litaker v. Bost, 523
...S.E.2d 114; Harris v. Draper, 233 N.C. 221, 63 S.E.2d 209; Dosher v. Hunt, 243 N.C. 247, 90 S.E.2d 374. Also, see Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, 233 N.C. 681, 65 S.E.2d 368. In Harper v. Harper, supra [225 N.C. 260, 34 S.E.2d 190], opinion by Barnhill, J. (later C.J.), it is stated: 'The o......
-
White v. Dickerson, Inc.
...or was directing or controlling the operation of the car, and that the driver's negligence was imputed to her. In Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, 233 N.C. 681, 65 S.E.2d 368, the Record on file in the office of the Clerk of this Court shows that the defendant in its answer alleged as a defe......