Patterson v. Ritchie
| Decision Date | 18 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 521.,521. |
| Citation | 202 N.C. 725,164 S.E. 117 |
| Parties | PATTERSON . v. RITCHIE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Schenck, Judge.
Action by Daisy McDonald Patterson, administratrix of G. L. Patterson, against Mrs. M. P. Ritchie. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
This is an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate.
At the time he suffered the injuries from which he died, plaintiff's intestate was riding in an automobile owned by the defendant, and driven by her husband. Defendant was not riding in the automobile, and had no control over its operation. Plaintiff's intestate was riding in the automobile as the guest of defendant's husband, who was driving the automobile for his own pleasure. The members of defendant's family, including her husband, habitually used the automobile, with her consent, for their own pleasure or business.
In her complaint the plaintiff alleged that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant's husband, the driver of the automobile in which her intestate was riding when he was killed. This allegation was denied in the answer of the defendant.
At the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. This motion was denied and defendant excepted. No evidence was offered.
by the defendant.
The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows:
From judgment that plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of $15,000, with the costs of the action, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bogle & Bogle, of Albemarle, and Fuller, Reade & Fuller, of Durham, for appellant.
Hartsell & Hartsell, of Concord, for appellee.
Conceding, without deciding, that the family purpose doctrine adopted in this state with respect to the use of automobiles (Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C. 759, 158 S. E. 491) is applicable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered by plaintiff fails to show that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant's husband, as alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingle v. Cassady
... ... accident it was pure and simple. Thomas v. Lawrence, ... 189 N.C. 521, 127 S.E. 585; Patterson v. Ritchie, ... 202 N.C. 725, 164 S.E. 117. He himself testified: "I do ... not know what I would have done, had I been at the ... wheel." He ... ...
-
Smith v. Pate
...v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 202 N.C. 272, 275, 162 S.E. 557, 559; Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N.C. 497, 181 S.E. 562; Patterson v. Ritchie, 202 N.C. 725, 164 S.E. 117; 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 256, p. 623; 5 Am.Jur. Plaintiffs did not file a brief in support of the motion and court's......
-
Forgy v. Schwartz, 668
...of ordinary care and prudence similarly situated would have made. Cockman v. Powers, 248 N.C. 403, 103 S.E.2d 710; Patterson v. Ritchie, 202 N.C. 725, 164 S.E. 117; 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 257. The law recognizes that the sudden appearance of an automobile, speeding toward a driver in hi......
-
Bondurant v. Mastin, 164
...' See also Henderson v. Henderson, 239 N.C. 487, 80 S.E.2d 383; Winfield v. Smith, 230 N.C. 392, 53 S.E.2d 251; Patterson v. Ritchie, 202 N.C. 725, 164 S.E. 117. In our opinion, a study of plaintiff's evidence does not establish facts necessary to show contributory negligence so clearly tha......