State v. McLean
Decision Date | 17 October 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 220,220 |
Citation | 234 N.C. 283,67 S.E.2d 75 |
Parties | STATE, v. McLEAN. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the state.
Seawell & Seawell, Carthage, for defendant appellant.
This appeal presents two questions: (1) Was the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the State sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit? (2) Did the Court below comply with G.S. § 1-180 in its charge to the jury? Both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative.
It has long been a violation of the common law to inflict injury upon a human being by culpable negligence, and if death results, the offender under certain circumstances may be called upon to answer to the charge of manslaughter or even murder. State of Wisconsin v. Whatley, 210 Wis. 157, 245 N.W. 93, 99 A.L.R. 756.
With the development of civilization and the resulting transition from animal-drawn vehicles to the intricate and expansive system of motorized transportation, it has become necessary for the protection of life and property to enact and maintain a code of rules regulating the operation of motor vehicles on the highways. A part of this code is G.S. § 20-140, which is as follows: 'Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in wilful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving, and upon conviction shall be punished as provided in § 20-180.'
A violation of this statute may subject the offender to both civil and criminal liability. There may be a violation of this statute as a result of which the offender is subjected, in addition to the civil liability, only to the penalty prescribed by the statute, but when the negligent acts are reckless to the point of culpability and are sufficient to evince a complete and thoughtless disregard for the rights and safety of other persons using the highways, it then becomes criminal negligence and the driver of a motor vehicle so offending may be called upon to answer for manslaughter.
The distinction between criminal and civil liability arising out of the reckless operation of an automobile on the public highways of North Carolina is clearly pointed out in State v. Cope, 204 N.C. 28, 167 S.E. 456, 457, where it is said:
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sanders
...of the parties and defined the law applicable thereto. We find no merit in defendant's exceptions to the charge. State v. McLean, 234 N.C. 283, 67 S.E.2d 75; State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548; State v. Hairston, 222 N.C. 455, 23 S.E.2d Defendant's last assignment of error relates t......
-
State v. Eason
...the driver's culpable negligence, such driver is guilty of manslaughter. State v. Whaley, 191 N.C. 387, 132 S.E. 6. In State v. McClean, 234 N.C. 283, 67 S.E.2d 75, a conviction of involuntary manslaughter was upheld. There the deceased, with the knowledge and acquiescence of defendant, was......
-
Dunlap v. Lee
...negligence per se. Stegall v. Sledge, 247 N. C. 718, 102 S.E.2d 115. It gives rise to both criminal and civil liability. State v. McLean, 234 N.C. 283, 67 S.E.2d 75. A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to en......
-
Best v. United States
...and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Lentz v. Gardin, 294 N.C. 425, 241 S.E.2d 508 (1978); State v. McLean, 234 N.C. 283, 67 S.E.2d 75 (1951). 6. In this case the plaintiff cannot identify a Government aircraft as the source of damage to his crops. His theory that......