Rayfield v. Clark
| Decision Date | 09 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,82 |
| Citation | 196 S.E.2d 197,283 N.C. 362 |
| Parties | Arthur Buster RAYFIELD, Administrator of the Estate of Mack L. Rayfield, Deceased v. Laura Edna CLARK and Mrs. Annie Ethel Clark. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Byrd, Byrd, Ervin & Blanton, Morganton, for plaintiff appellee.
Clarence N. Gilbert, Asheville, for defendant appellants.
Defendants assign as error the court's refusal (1) to grant their motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and (2) to set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment in accordance with their motion for a directed verdict. G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 50(a), (b)(1), (1969). These motions raise the question whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, will justify a verdict in his favor. Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E.2d 396 (1971).
Thus viewed, the jury could have found from the evidence that Miss Clark, without keeping a proper lookout, and traveling at a greater speed than was reasonable and prudent after she had seen on the east shoulder a group of pedestrians who appeared to her to be about to cross the highway, drove off the pavement and collided with Rayfield on the west shoulder. From the evidence the jury could also have found that Miss Clark, driving at a reasonable rate of speed entirely in the lane for southbound traffic, collided with Rayfield when he suddenly stepped from the west shoulder onto the pavement and directly into the path of her oncoming car, which he should have seen approaching had he exercised proper care for his own safety.
The jury accepted Franklin's version of events and found for plaintiff. Defendants contend, however, that Franklin's testimony is inherently incredible and disproved by the physical evidence at the scene. Concededly, the absence of any testimony from the other three persons who were on the highway with Franklin at the time of the accident raises unanswered questions. In addition the evidence of Franklin's intoxication, plus the extraordinary acuteness and range of vision which would have been required to see what he said he saw, cast some doubt on the accuracy of his observations. Yet the jurors are the sole judges of the credibility of a witness, and the weight to be given Franklin's testimony was a matter for them. The jury may believe all of the testimony of a witness, or part of it, or none of it. Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 488, 141 S.E.2d 875, 877 (1965). In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict and the subsequent motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict based upon it, we must accept the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses at face value. Cockman v. Powers, 248 N.C. 403, 407, 103 S.E.2d 710, 713 (1958). We hold therefore that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to survive the motion for a directed verdict.
Defendants' next assignment is that the court erred in not allowing their motion to set aside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Bodycombe
...be granted only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict. Summey v. Cauthen, 283 N.C. 640, 197 S.E.2d 549; Rayfield v. Clark, 283 N.C. 362, 196 S.E.2d 197; Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E.2d In Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice Vol. II § 103.4 it is stated: The stan......
-
Williams v. Randolph
...into returning an erroneous verdict his is the responsibility for awarding a new trial for that reason. Rayfield v. Clark, 283 N.C. 362, 367, 196 S.E.2d 197, 200 (1973). Plaintiff's second assignment of error is Third, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's cl......
-
McCollum v. Grove Mfg. Co., 8118SC966
...36 N.C.App. 505, 244 S.E.2d 463 (1978). The testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses must be accepted at face value. Rayfield v. Clark, 283 N.C. 362, 196 S.E.2d 197 (1973). (1) The Negligence The essential elements of an action for products liability based upon negligence include "(1) evidenc......
-
Snow v. Duke Power Co.
...question whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, will justify a verdict in his favor. Rayfield v. Clark, 283 N.C. 362, 196 S.E.2d 197 (1973). In passing upon such motion, "the evidence in favor of the non-movant must be deemed true, all conflicts in the eviden......