Meece v. Dickson, 89
| Decision Date | 06 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 89,89 |
| Citation | Meece v. Dickson, 113 S.E.2d 578, 252 N.C. 300 (N.C. 1960) |
| Parties | Calvin Grady MEECE v. John Henry DICKSON, Jr. (and C. Walter Allen appointed Guardian ad litem by the court). |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
James W. Regan, Oscar Stanton, Asheville, for plaintiffappellant.
Meekins, Packer & Roberts, Asheville, for defendantappellee.
Plaintiff assigns as error the ruling of the trial court in granting defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit.
In this connection it is appropriate to refer to two statutes, G.S. § 20-161andG.S. § 20-134, each in pertinent part pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways in this State.
G.S. § 20-161 declares '(a) No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled portion of any highway, outside of a business or residence district, when it is practicable to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main traveled portion of such highway: Provided, in no event shall any person park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon any highway unless a clear and unobstructed width of not less than fifteen feet upon the main traveled portion of said highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for free passage of other vehicles thereon, nor unless a clear view of such vehicle may be obtained from a distance of two hundred feet in both directions upon such highway:
'Provided further (not pertinent here) * * *
(b) Not pertinent here.
And (c) declares that 'The provisions of this section shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or improved or main traveled portion of a highway in such manner and to such an extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving such vehicle in such position.'(Emphasis supplied)
To 'park' means something more than a mere temporary or momentary stoppage on the highway for a necessary purpose.Stallings v. Buchan Transportation Co., 210 N.C. 201, 185 S.E. 643.Hence in Skinner v. Evans, 243 N.C. 760, 92 S.E.2d 209, the Court held that the temporary stopping of the automobile upon the highway under the circumstances there portrayed was not violative of the provisions of G.S. § 20-161(a)as amended pertaining to stopping on a highway.See among other casesPeoples v. Fulk, 220 N.C. 635, 18 S.E.2d 147;Leary v. Norfolk Southern Bus Corp., 220 N.C. 745, 18 S.E.2d 426;Pike v. Seymour, 222 N.C. 42, 21 S.E.2d 884;Morgan v. Carolina Coach Co., 225 N.C. 668, 36 S.E.2d 263;Morris v. Jenrette Transportation Co., 235 N.C. 568, 70 S.E.2d 845.
Moreover, G.S. § 20-161 has no reference to a mere temporary stop for a necessary purpose where there is no intent to break the continuity of travel....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 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 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 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 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 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 Free Trial
-
Melton v. Crotts
...or parked on the highway at night to light his vehicle as required by G.S. § 20-134 and G.S. § 20-129. To the extent that Meece v. Dickson, 252 N.C. 300, 113 S.E.2d 578, may be construed as conflicting with what is here said, it is Does the evidence suffice to show plaintiff's contributory ......
-
Murdock v. Ratliff
...portions of his opponent's pleading is bound thereby. Smith v. Metal Co., 257 N.C. 143, 125 S.E.2d 377 (1962); Meece v. Dickson, 252 N.C. 300, 113 S.E.2d 578 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, Melton v. Crotts, 257 N.C. 121, 125 S.E.2d 396 (1962); Smith v. Burleson, 9 N.C.App. 611, 177 S.E.2d ......
-
Smith v. Goldsboro Iron & Metal Co., 309
...of defendants' answer in evidence, he is bound thereby with respect to the manner in which the truck involved was parked. Meece v. Dickson, 252 N.C. 300, 113 S.E.2d 578. The evidence in this case is to the effect that it was customary to park cars on the east side of Kornegay Street both in......
-
Miller v. Cannon Motors, Inc.
...him and is not contradicted by other evidence, the party so calling the adverse witness is bound by his testimony, Meece v. Dickson, 252 N.C. 300, 113 S.E.2d 578 (1960); Stansbury, Op. cit., § 40. In the absence of the Prima facie inference of negligence arising upon plaintiff's evidence, v......