Smith v. Rawlins, 172
Citation | 116 S.E.2d 184,85 A.L.R.2d 609,253 N.C. 67 |
Decision Date | 28 September 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 172,172 |
Parties | , 85 A.L.R.2d 609 Effron SMITH v. Eugene W. RAWLINS. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Joseph C. Olschner, Jacksonville, for plaintiff, appellant.
James & Speight and William C. Brewer, Jr., Greenville, for defendant, appellee.
Plaintiff's evidence consists of his own testimony, and the testimony of doctors in respect to his injuries.
Plaintiff's testimony tends to show the following: He is employed as Head Engineer at the steam plant, which is located on the Air Facility, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Plaintiff testified as follows: Following the impact plaintiff got out of his automobile, and talked to the defendant, Captain Rawlins. The rear bumper of plaintiff's automobile was bent in about four inches, its trailer hitch was pushed in and sprung open, and the front seat was knocked out of the seat track.
N.C.G.S. § 20-152(a), and the complaint alleges a violation of this statute, provides 'the driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, with regard for the safety of others and due regard to the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon the condition of the highway' .
A violation of N.C.G.S. § 20-152(a) is negligence per se, and if injury proximately results therefrom, it is actionable. Murray v. Atlantic Coast Line R., 218 N.C. 392, 11 S.E.2d 326; Cozart v. Hudson, 239 N.C. 279, 78 S.E.2d 881; Crotts v. Overnite Transportation Co., 246 N.C. 420, 98 S.E.2d 502.
This Court said in Badders v. Lassiter, 240 N.C. 413, 82 S.E.2d 357, 361:
Accepting plaintiff's evidence as true (Polansky v. Millers' Mutual Fire Ins. Ass'n, 238 N.C. 427, 78 S.E.2d 213), and considering his evidence in the light most favorable to him, and giving to him the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom (Bridges v. Graham, 246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E.2d 492), as we are required to do in passing on the motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit, it permits a legitimate inference by a jury that defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ardis v. Reed
...o.b. 28 N.J. 568, 147 A.2d 795 (1959); Stackenwalt v. Washburn, 42 N.J. 15, 30, 198 A.2d 454 (1964); Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184, 85 A.L.R.2d 609 (Sup.Ct.1960); Annotation, 84 A.L.R.2d 613 Assuming that no New Jersey case has as yet approved a charge of Res ipsa in rear en......
-
Jarrett v. Southern Ry. Co., 316
...of defendant's negligence or because plaintiff's own evidence established his contributory negligence as a matter of law. Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184; Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804; Leonard v. Garner, 253 N.C. 278, 116 S.E.2d 731; Bundy v. Powell, 229 ......
-
Beanblossom v. Thomas, s. 451
...once it is established, is negligence per se, and, if injury proximately results therefrom, it is actionable. Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184, 85 A.L.R.2d 609. The statute fixes no specific distance at which one automobile may lawfully follow another. In determining the proper......
-
Clark v. Scheld
...speed, was following too closely, or failed to keep a proper lookout. Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 804; Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E.2d 184. However, 'The relative duties automobile drivers owe one another when they are traveling along a highway in the same direc......