Sheldon v. Childers, 530
| Decision Date | 04 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 530,530 |
| Citation | 240 N.C. 449,82 S.E.2d 396 |
| Parties | SHELDON, v. CHILDERS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Taliaferro, Grier, Parker & Poe, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellant.
Kennedy, Kennedy & Hickman and Charles E. Knox, Charlotte, for defendants, appellees.
Is the evidence of the plaintiff, taken for him in its most favorable light, sufficient' to survive the challenge of the motion for judgment of nonsuit? The trial court decided No, and we agree.
It is to be noted that the plaintiff does not say the tractor trailer unit showed no signal indicating a left turn. His testimony is, 'No type of turn signal was given that I was able to see. ' Moore v. Boone, 231 N.C. 494, 57 S.E.2d 783; Hollingsworth v. Grier, 231 N.C. 108, 55 S.E.2d 806. It is also significant that W. D. Sawyer, a State Patrolman and witness for the plaintiff, who arrived on the scene about 20 minutes after the collision, testified on cross-examination, he examined the signal light on the rear of the trailer there; the light worked when it was turned on, and was visible from the rear of the trailer; it showed a red arrow when the switch was turned on.
However it may be, as to whether sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants was offered at the trial, it clearly appears from the plaintiff's own evidence that he was guilty of contributory negligence, and when such facts appear a compulsory nonsuit is proper. Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E.2d 307; Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538; Lyerly v. Griffin, 237 N.C. 686, 75 S.E.2d 730.
The plaintiff's negligence to bar recovery need not be the sole proximate cause of injury. It suffices, if it contribute to his injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E.2d 251; Parkway Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E.2d 623; Moore v. Boone, supra.
It seems clear that the plaintiff was either failing to keep a reasonably careful lookout, or was driving at an excessive rate of speed under the conditions then existing. The plaintiff pulled into the left lane of traffic to pass, and when he was about 200 feet from the tractor trailer which was travelling 10 to 15 miles an hour, it pulled into the left lane of traffic to enter the Mar-Grace Mill Road, and stopped. Plaintiff applied his brakes, which held, and skidded some 157 feet--some 66 feet forward and some 91 feet sideways--until the front end of his automobile was stopped by and underneath the high body of the trailer. The length and manner of the skid marks are stubborn things and flinch not; and these 'physical facts speak louder than the witness. ' (Austin v. Overton, 222 N.C. 89, 21 S.E.2d 887, 889) as to plaintiff's excessive speed. It also seems clear that if plaintiff had been keeping a reasonably careful lookout, and not travelling at an excessive rate of speed, he could have safely passed on the right edge of the pavement and the right shoulder which was level with the pavement. The conclusion is inescapable that plaintiff's negligence contributed to his injury. Moore v. Boone, supra; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E.2d 355; Atkins v. White Transportation Co., 224 N.C. 688, 32 S.E.2d 209; Austin v. Overton, supra.
The plaintiff contends that his case is controlled by Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Cline, 238 N.C. 133, 76 S.E.2d 374. The facts are different. In the Cline Case when plaintiff's automobile and defendant's truck were running side by side, the truck turned sharply to the left without any signal or warning onto the left half of the highway. The plaintiff also relies upon Grimm v. Watson, supra. The facts are not similar. In the Grimm case the plaintiff was travelling about 35 miles an hour, and the evidence of plaintiff was that the bus driver in front turned the bus sharply to the left without any signal, when the front of plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Rogers
...Transportation Co., supra; Hampton v. Hawkins, 219 N.C. 205, 13 S.E.2d 227. The defendants are relying on the case of Sheldon v. Childers, 240 N.C. 449, 82 S.E.2d 396, where the facts in some respects are similar to those in the instant case, but there is a substantial difference between th......
-
Keener v. Beal, 171
...A plaintiff's negligence suffices to bar recovery, if it contributes to his injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Sheldon v. Childers, 240 N.C. 449, 82 S.E.2d 396. G.S. § 20-141(e) provides that 'the failure or inability of a motor vehicle operator who is operating such vehicle withi......
-
Weavil v. Myers
...the sole proximate cause of injury. It suffices, if it contributes to his injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Sheldon v. Childers, 240 N.C. 449, 82 S.E.2d 396; Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E.2d In one part of the complaint it is alleged that when the front and rear lights of t......
-
Blevins v. France
...cause of injury or death. It suffices, if it contributes t to his injury or death as a proximate cause, or one of them. Sheldon v. Childers, 240 N.C. 449, 82 S.E.2d 396; Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E.2d 251; Parkway Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E.2d 623; Moo......