Springs v. Doll

• Decision Date: 22 May 1929
• Docket Number: 465.
• Parties: SPRINGS v. DOLL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

148 S.E. 251

197 N.C. 240

SPRINGS v. DOLL.

No. 465.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 22, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Harding, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Ellie Alexander Springs against Mary Matthews Doll. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Whether res ipsa loquitur applies is for court under admitted facts.

On January 17, 1928, the plaintiff was invited by the defendant to ride in her automobile from Lincolnton to Charlotte. The defendant was driving the car and the plaintiff was seated in the back seat. After proceeding some distance, rain began to fall and the road became a little wet. A large moving van was approaching the defendant and was traveling in the middle of the road with the front wheels on the white center line on the pavement and the body of the truck protruding beyond the center of the road.

The defendant testified: "I pulled to the extreme right of the road to avoid hitting the truck and in doing that my front wheels left the paving and in coming back, trying to straighten myself in the road, my car skidded and I put on my brakes, and my car turned and went up an embankment and turned over."

Plaintiff testified: "We saw a truck coming. She moved over just a little to let the truck pass and after it passed she seemed to have lost control of her car. The car began jumping and pitching and started up an embankment and turned back and then turned over. *** As to how high the embankment was I might say it was eight feet. I didn't take special notice of that. *** I was not paying any attention to the speed. I have ridden with Miss Doll several times. *** I said I had no criticism to make at all as I am no judge of driving."

There was evidence relating to serious injury sustained by the plaintiff.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury, and the first issue as to negligence of the defendant was answered in the negative.

From the judgment upon the verdict, the plaintiff appealed.

John M Robinson and Hunter M. Jones, both of Charlotte, for appellant.

C. H Gover, of Charlotte, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

Does the principle of res ipsa loquitur apply to the skidding of an automobile resulting in injury to a passenger? The principle of res ipsa loquitur has been frequently stated in various decisions of this court and of other courts, and therefore requires no restatement or elaboration. There are however, certain well-established exceptions or limitations to the application of the rule. The most important of these exceptions or limitations may be classified as follows:

(1) The apparatus must be such that in the ordinary instances no injurious operation is to be expected, unless from a careless construction, inspection, or user; (2) both inspection and user must have been, at the time of the injury, in the control of the party charged; (3) the injurious occurrence must have happened irrespective of any voluntary action at the time by the party injured. Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N.C. 60, 50 S.E. 562.

The principle does not apply (1) when all the facts causing the accident are known and testified to by the witnesses at the trial, Baldwin v. Smitherman, 171 N.C. 772, 88 S.E 854; Orr v. Rumbough, 172 N.C. 754, 90 S. E. 911; Enloe v. R. R., 179 N.C. 83, 101 S.E. 556; (2) where more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence as to the cause of the injury, Lamb v. Boyles, 192 N.C. 542, 135 S.E. 464, 49 A. L. R. 589; (3) where the existence of negligent default is not the more reasonable probability, and where the proof of the occurrence, without more, leaves the matter resting only in conjecture, Dail v. Taylor, 151 N.C. 284, 66 S.E. 135, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 949; (4) where it appears that the accident was due to a cause beyond the control of the defendant, such as the act of God or the wrongful or tortious act of a stranger, Heffter v. Northern States Power Co., 173 Minn. 215, 217 N.W. 102, 25 A. L. R. 713, note 2; (5) when the instrumentality causing the injury is not under the exclusive control or management of the defendant, Saunders v. R. R., ...