Smith v. Nunn, 524
| Citation | 125 S.E.2d 351,257 N.C. 108 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 524,524 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Don R. SMITH, by his next friend, Pansy S. Smith, v. Melvin C. NUNN, t/a Liberty Farms and Gardens, and Dearl F. Love. |
Ottway Burton, Linwood T. Peoples, Asheboro, for plaintiff, appellant.
Coltrane & Gavin, by W. E. Gavin, Asheboro, for defendants, appellees.
The evidence presents an issue, only in minor degree, variant from what has become a familiar motif. Whose fault? Ordinarily, parking on the highway without lights 40 minutes before sunrise is unlawful. G.S. § 20-129; Williamson v. Varner, 252 N.C. 446, 114 S.E.2d 92. Before entering a public highway from a private driveway, the operator of a motor vehicle is required to exercise due care to see that the intended movement can be made in safety. G.S. § 20-156.
The plaintiff's evidence presents a jury question as to the defendant's negligence in parking upon or entering the highway. Contributory negligence does not appear as a matter of law, though the evidence of speed and following too close to the vehicle in front does likewise present an issue for the jury. Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bigelow v. Johnson
...man would conclude that the entry could be made in safety. Penland v. Green, 289 N.C. 281, 221 S.E.2d 365 (1976); Smith v. Nunn, 257 N.C. 108, 125 S.E.2d 351 (1962); C.C.T. Equipment Co. v. Hertz Corp., 256 N.C. 277, 123 S.E.2d 802 Since defendant Millican was entering West Cornwallis Drive......
-
Davis v. Imes
...111.' Equipment Co. v. Hertz Corp. and Contractors, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 256 N.C. 277, 123 S.E.2d 802 (1962). See also, Smith v. Nunn, 257 N.C. 108, 125 S.E.2d 351 (1962); 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § The defendant appellant contends, however, that we should find from a review of the evidenc......
- Stone v. Griffin Baking Co. of Greensboro
-
Black v. Gurley Mill. Co., 174
...57 S.E.2d 783; Fawley v. Bobo, 231 N.C. 203, 56 S.E.2d 419; Austin v. Overton, 222 N.C. 89, 21 S.E.2d 887. The case of Smith v. Nunn, 257 N.C. 108, 125 S.E.2d 351, is factually distinguishable, inter alia, in that plaintiff in that case was driving a passenger automobile, and not as here a ......