Tatem v. Tatem
| Decision Date | 27 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
| Citation | 96 S.E.2d 725,245 N.C. 587 |
| Parties | Gladys Marle TATEM v. Wallace TATEM |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
LeRoy & Goodwin, Elizabeth City, for defendant, appellant.
Killian Barwick and John H. Hall, Elizabeth City, for plaintiff, appellee.
The single question presented for decision is whether the evidence favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of actionable negligence. The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by her husband. They were traveling on a winding hard-surfaced road through a swamp in Pasquotank County. It was in the nighttime. The car crossed the pavement and shoulder to its right, ran off the side of the embankment down into the swamp, and overturned after traveling about 90 feet from where it left the road. The plaintiff sustained substantial injuries, necessitating the amputation of her right arm between the elbow and shoulder.
Before reaching the curve where the wreck occurred, the defendant had passed a highway sign indicating he was approaching a winding road with zigzag curves. The curve where the wreck occurred was to the driver's left. The defendant was driving on the left side of the road as he entered the curve. The pavement was 16 feet wide. The plaintiff testified:
The defendant had just previously gone around one curve and the plaintiff had remonstrated with him about the speed he was making. He replied: 'I am driving this car,' and he did not slow down. Instead he continued on at the same speed, 40 to 45 miles per hour, until he ran off the side of the road.
From the foregoing evidence it is inferable that the defendant in rounding the curve failed to exercise due care to maintain a proper lookout and to keep his car under control, and that he was driving recklessly in violation of G.S. § 20-140. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of actionable negligence. Decision here is controlled by the principles explained and applied in Etheridge v. Etheridge, 222 N.C. 616, 24 S.E.2d 477, and Boone v. Matheny, 224 N.C. 250, 29 S.E.2d 687. See also King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554, 163 S.E. 447.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lane v. Dorney
...of G.S. § 20-140. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of actionable negligence. ' Tatem v. Tatem, 245 N.C. 587, 96 S.E.2d 725, 726. After careful and critical reconsideration of the evidence offered on the original hearing, we now conclude the evidence was......
-
Lane v. Dorney
...readily warrants an inference of negligence in operation. ' Etheridge v. Etheridge, 222 N.C. 616, 24 S.E.2d 477, 480; Tatem v. Tatem, 245 N.C. 587, 96 S.E.2d 725; Hensley v. Harris, 242 N.C. 599, 89 S.E.2d 155; Boone v. Matheny, 224 N.C. 250, 29 S.E.2d The evidence, in my opinion, was suffi......
-
Scarlette v. Grindstaff, 377
...Co., 257 N.C. 730, 127 S.E.2d 515; McEwen Funeral Service v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, 248 N.C. 146, 102 S.E.2d 816; Tatem v. Tatem, 245 N.C. 587, 96 S.E.2d 725; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E.2d Undoubtedly the parties recognized towing the Scarlette vehicle in the manner described on ......
-
Randall v. Rogers, 174
...actionable negligence. This decision is in line with our decisions in Lane v. Dorney, 252 N.C. 90, 113 S.E.2d 33, and Tatem v. Tatem, 245 N.C. 587, 96 S.E.2d 725. The judgment of involuntary nonsuit was improvidently entered and Reversed. ...