Powell v. Cross
Decision Date | 24 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
Citation | 263 N.C. 764,140 S.E.2d 393 |
Parties | Vernon POWELL v. Mrs. Thomas CROSS, Jr., Mr. Thomas Cross, Jr., and Stephen M. Ginelewicz. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Edgar J. Gurganus, Williamston, for plaintiff.
Griffin & Martin, Williamston, for defendants Cross.
James & Speight, and William C. Brewer, Jr., Greenville, for defendant Ginelewicz.
Plaintiff contends, first, that the court erred in allowing the motion of defendants Cross for nonsuit.
The injuries of which plaintiff complains were suffered in a collision involving three automobiles. The collision occurred about 6:45 P.M. on 7 August 1961 on U. S. Highway 13 and 17 about 5 miles north of Williamston, N. C., where paved rural road 1521 (Cedar Landing Road) makes a 'T' intersection with said highway. Plaintiff was driving his automobile northwardly on the highway at a speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour (according to his testimony) approaching said intersection and intending to make a right turn into the Cedar Landing Road. Defendant Mrs. Cross, operating her husband's automobile, was following plaintiff. Defendant Ginelewicz was following Mrs. Cross. The highway is 23 feet wide and has a 6 to 7-foot shoulder on each side. It had been raining. As plaintiff was making his turn to the right at the intersection, his car was struck in the rear by the Cross automobile.
Plaintiff testified: After the collision there were two dents in the rear of the car.
Mrs. Scott Harrell, a passenger in the Cross car, was called as a witness for plaintiff and testified as follows:
Plaintiff instituted this action against Mrs. Cross, Mr. Cross (under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as owner of family purpose car driven by his wife), and Mr. Ginelewicz. He alleges that Mrs. Cross was negligent in that she drove recklessly (G.S. § 20-140) and at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent (G.S. § 20-141), failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to maintain reasonable control, and followed too closely (G.S. § 20-153).
Plaintiff called Mrs. Harrell and caused her to give testimony. In doing so he made her his witness and represented that she was worthy of belief. State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 79 S.E.2d 473. She testified that the Cross car came to a complete stop just before reaching the plaintiff's car and was forced into the rear of plaintiff's car by the Ginelewicz automobile. Defendants Cross contend that her testimony absolves them of each of the specifications of negligence set out in the complaint, and that plaintiff is bound by her testimony. On the other hand, plaintiff contends that he is not foreclosed by Mrs. Harrell's testimony with respect to the conduct of Mrs. Cross, that he is not precluded from proving the facts to be different from those to which Mrs. Harrell...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Parisi
-
Zee Co. v. Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C.
...attorney's negligence, the plaintiff ... would not have sustained any damages.”) (citation omitted); 26.See also Powell v. Cross, 263 N.C. 764, 768, 140 S.E.2d 393 (1965) (stressing that an inference with respect to negligence “must be based on some clear and direct evidence” and thus “cann......
-
State v. Davis
... ... Further, Sergeant Spry testified as follows on cross-examination: Q. When you spoke to [Defendant] the morning after this happened, she did not conceal or hide the fact that she was involved in some ... ...
-
Cline v. Atwood
...of Scott was introduced in evidence, the plaintiff made him his witness and represented that he was worthy of belief. Powell v. Cross, 263 N.C. 764, 140 S.E.2d 393; State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 79 S.E.2d 473. A party does not make his adversary his witness by taking his adverse examinatio......