Ponder v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co

• Decision Date: 21 March 1934
• Docket Number: No. 90.,90.
• Citation: Ponder v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co, 173 S.E. 336, 206 N.C. 266 (N.C. 1934)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PONDER . v. NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al.

173 S.E. 336

206 N.C. 266

PONDER .

v.NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al.

No. 90.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 21, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by Love Ponder against the National Convoy & Trucking Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries to the person and to the property of the plaintiff, caused, as alleged in the com-plaint, by the negligence of the defendants in the operation of a truck and trailer owned by the defendant the National Convoy & Trucking Company, and operated by the defendant Floyd S. Williams, its employee.

The evidence at the trial tended to show that on November 3, 1932, a truck owned and driven by the plaintiff collided with a trailer attached to a truck owned by the defendant the National Convoy & Trucking Company, and operated by the defendant Floyd S. Williams, its employee, within the corporate limits of the town of Marshall; N. C, on State Highway No. 20, with the result that plaintiff's truck was badly injured, and that plaintiff suffered painful and permanent injuries to his person.

At the time of the collision, the trailer attached to the truck extended across and completely obstructed the highway. The truck and trailer were about 61 feet in length; the highway through the town of Marshall, and at the place of the collision, was 18 or 20 feet wide. The defendant Floyd S. Williams had undertaken to turn the truck and trailer around on the highway, by driving the truck into a side road, which was not paved, leaving the trailer extending across and completely obstructing the highway. The wheels of the truck stuck in the soft ground of the side road, and for this reason the defendant was unable to move the truck or the trailer. He was in this situation for 10 or 15 minutes before the collision, and during that time made no effort to warn drivers of approaching automobiles or trucks of their peril, although he could see that a curve in the highway would prevent such drivers from seeing the trailer until they were so close to it that they might not be able to stop and thus avoid a collision. All his efforts were devoted to moving the truck and trailer. There were several persons present, attracted by his situation; but defendant did not request any one of them to warn drivers of approaching automobiles or trucks of their peril, by flags or otherwise.

While defendant's trailer thus obstructed the highway, the plaintiff, driving his truck, which was heavily loaded, approached on the highway, coming downgrade. Because of a curve in the highway, the plaintiff did not see, and could not see, the trailer, until he was within 25 or 30 feet of the obstruction. After he saw that the trailer was across the highway, completely obstructing it, the plaintiff was unable to stop his truck, because of the steep grade and his heavy load. Despite his efforts to avoid a collision, he was unable to do so. Plaintiff suffered painful and per manent injuries to his person as the result of the collision. His truck was badly injured.

Issues involving defendants' negligence, plaintiff's contributory negligence, and the amount of damages...