Radford v. Young
| Decision Date | 21 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 573.) |
| Citation | 140 S.E. 806 |
| Parties | RADFORD. v. YOUNG et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Deal, Judge.
Action by Dallas Radford against T. P. Young and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.
The plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the defendants, alleging that a truck owned by the defendants and operated by their agent, and while engaged in their business, ran over and injured him while he was walking upon the highway and traveling toward Weaverville. The evidence tended toshow that the truck approached plaintiff from the rear and knocked him down. Defendants offered evidence tending to show that the truck was not being used in their business at the time, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, barring recovery. Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff.
From judgment upon the verdict the defendants appealed.
Ellis Jones and George M. Pritchard, both of Asheville, for appellants.
C. R. Edney, of Mars Hill, and Rollins & Smathers, of Asheville, for appellee.
BROGDEN, J. Public Laws of 1923, c. 160, authorizes the state highway commission to make rules, regulations, and ordinances regulating the use of the state highways, and further providing that the violation of any such ordinance so prescribed shall constitute a misdemeanor. Sections 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the state highway commission, admitted in evidence, provide as follows:
The defendant offered evidence tending to show that at the time of his injury the plaintiff was walking on the right-hand of the highway in violation of said ordinance. The plaintiff, however, contended that he was not walking on the pavement at all, testifying in regard thereto as follows:
One of the questions presented by the appeal was whether or not walking along the right-hand side of the highway in violation of the ordinance constituted contributory negligence. The Judge charged the jury, in substance, that if they should find that the plaintiff was walking on the right side of the highway in violation of the ordinance enacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Wood, 20
...surrounding circumstances as to whether she used reasonable care and caution commensurate with visible conditions.' In Radford v. Young, 194 N.C. 747, 140 S.E. 806, the appeal involved the interpretation of an ordinance adopted by the Highway Commission pursuant to the provisions of Public ......
-
Stevens v. Rostan, (No. 492.)
...the facts in the present case. As to proximate cause, see De Laney v. Henderson, 192 N. C. at page 651, 135 S. E. 791; Radford v. Young, 194 N. C. 747, 140 S. E. 806. As to sudden danger or emergency, see Riggs v. Mfg. Co., 190 N. C. at page 260, 129 S. E. 595; Fowler v. Underwood, 193 N. C......
- State v. Adkins