Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 7826SC118,7826SC118 |
| Citation | 248 S.E.2d 868,38 N.C.App. 658 |
| Parties | Donald SHAPIRO and Harold Shapiro v. TOYOTA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., North Carolina Telephone Company, and the Town of Matthews. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Helms, Mullis & Johnston by N. K. Dickerson, III, and Robert B. Cordle, Charlotte, and Karsman, Brooks, Doremus by Stanley M. Karsman, Savannah, Ga., for plaintiffs.
Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray by Marvin K. Gray and Harvey L. Cosper Jr., and Robert L. Chapman, Charlotte, for defendant North Carolina Telephone Co.
Wade & Carmichael by R. C. Carmichael, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant Town of Matthews.
The question for decision is whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendants Town of Matthews and North Carolina Telephone Company.
Rendition of summary judgment is, by the rule itself, conditioned upon a showing by the movant (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and (2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972); Stoltz v. Hospital Authority, Inc., 38 N.C.App. 103, 247 S.E.2d 280 (1978).
Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against claimant, but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner. It is only in exceptional negligence cases that summary judgment is appropriate. This is because the rule of the prudent man (or other applicable standard of care) must be applied, and ordinarily the jury should apply it under appropriate instructions from the court. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975).
While plaintiffs recognize that G.S. 136-66.1 and 160A-297(a) absolve the Town of responsibility for maintaining and improving RPR 1009, nevertheless, they contend the Town and Board of Transportation share a dual responsibility for erecting appropriate highway signs pursuant to G.S. 136-30 and 31. Hence, they argue that the Town was negligent for failing to post adequate warning signs, for failing to light the intersection adequately, and for allowing the pole to be placed where it was. We disagree. Under the cited statutes together with G.S. 136-93, when a city street becomes a part of the State highway system, the Board of Transportation is responsible for its maintenance thereafter which includes the control of all signs and structures within the right-of-way. Therefore, in the absence of any control over a state highway within its border, a municipality has no liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of such street unless it created or increased such condition. That authority precedes responsibility, or that control is a prerequisite of liability, is a well recognized principle of law as well as of ethics. Taylor v. Hartford, 253 N.C. 541, 117 S.E.2d 469 (1960). The court correctly allowed summary judgment in favor of defendant Town of Matthews.
The action of the court in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant North Carolina Telephone Company presents the question as to whether the placing and maintenance of its telephone pole in the Town of Matthews with the Town's permission, in the arc of a curve in the right-of-way of RPR 1009 approximately twelve and one-half inches (121/2 ) from the curb line could be held to be negligent of itself. If there was a total lack of negligence on movant's part, no issue is raised for the jury to consider.
G.S. 62-180 provides that operators of telephone lines have the right to construct and maintain lines along a public highway but may not obstruct or hinder unreasonably the usual travel on such highway.
In Wood v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co., 228 N.C. 605, 46 S.E.2d 717 (1948), the minor plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injury sustained when his arm was caught between the automobile he was driving and a telephone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillan v. State Highway Com'n
...Co. v. Lively, 465 So.2d 1270, 1276 (Fla.App., 1985); Wood v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra; Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co. Ltd, 38 N.C.App. 658, 248 S.E.2d 868 (1978). Similarly, in Simpson v. City of Montgomery, 282 Ala. 368, 211 So.2d 498 (1968), a car crashed into a utility pol......
-
Boylan v. Martindale, 81-323
...company unless the placement creates a hazard for vehicular travel in the ordinary course of travel. (See Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co. (1978), 38 N.C.App. 658, 248 S.E.2d 868; Simpson v. City of Montgomery (1968), 282 Ala. 368, 211 So.2d 498.) Aware of the undesirable consequences that would......
-
Lemings By and Through Lemings v. Collinsville School Dist. No. Ten
...company unless the placement creates a hazard for vehicular travel in the ordinary course of travel. (See Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co. (1978), 38 N.C.App. 658, 248 S.E.2d 868; Simpson v. City of Montgomery (1968), 282 Ala. 368, 211 So.2d 498.) Aware of the undesirable consequences that would......
-
Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp.
...citing Wood, defendant Duke Energy also cites to Alford v. Washington, 238 N.C. 694, 78 S.E.2d 915 (1953) and Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co., 38 N.C.App. 658, 248 S.E.2d 868 (1978), in support of its argument that utility companies are not required to foresee or protect against collisions betw......