Thomas v. Thurston Motor Lines
| Decision Date | 23 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | 103 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. THURSTON MOTOR LINES, Inc., et al. THURSTON MOTOR LINES, Inc. v. WATSON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
For ease of narration, the plaintiff, Deward C Thomas, and the defendants, Joseph Winstead Watson and Lynwood C. Dorman, are herein called by their respective surnames.
These two actions arose out of a collision between the southbound Plymouth coupe of Watson and the northbound tractor-trailer combination of the Thurston Motor Lines, a domestic corporation. Watson drove the Plymouth, and Thomas, his gratuitous guest, rode beside him on the right side of the seat. Dorman, a chauffeur regularly employed by Thurston Motor Lines, was operating the tractor and trailer on a mission for his employer. The Plymouth and the trailer sustained substantial damage, and Thomas and Watson suffered serious personal injuries.
In the first case, Thomas, as plaintiff, sued Thurston Motor Lines and Dorman, as defendants, for personal injuries. Thurston Motor Lines and Dorman denied liability to Thomas, alleging that his injuries resulted solely from the negligent conduct of Watson. Moreover, they procured an order of court making Watson a party defendant, and prayed for contribution from him as joint tort feasor in the event of any recovery by Thomas against them. Watson denied liability for contribution, and counterclaimed against Thurston Motor Lines and Dorman for injury to his person and damage to his automobile, and they pleaded contributory negligence on his part as a bar to his counterclaim. In the second action, Thurston Motor Lines, as plaintiff, sued Watson as defendant, for damage to its trailer, and Watson renewed his counterclaim against Thurston Motor Lines, which reiterated its plea of contributory negligence against him.
By the implied consent of the parties, the court consolidated the actions for trial and judgment. All of the parties presented testimony, which was received without objection.
There was practically no disagreement in the evidence of the several parties relating to the matters set out in the next three paragraphs.
The collision occurred about 3:45 o'clock in the morning of March 8, 1947, upon United States Highway No. 301 within the municipal limits of Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The road ran north and south, and was relatively level and straight. It was paved to a width of 22 feet, and a center line divided it into northbound and southbound traffic lanes. The night was cold, dark, and stormy. A heavy mixture of rain and sleet was descending, limiting the vision of motorist and rendering the surface of the roadway somewhat icy.
The overhall length of the tractor-trailer combination was approximately 45 feet. The tractor, which contained the motor and the driver's cab, had single wheels in front and dual wheels in the rear. The trailer had dual wheels in the rear but no wheels at the front, and was connected with the tractor by a coupling device in the center of the rear of the tractor upon which the front of the trailer rested. The coupler was so fashioned that the tractor could be turned 'at right angles or more' to the trailer. The trailer resembled a 'boxcar,' being 8 feet wide, about 12 feet high, and 32 feet long. Its bottom was '3 or 4 feet' above the ground. The trailer itself weighed 7,500 pounds, and was being used to transport 15,000 pounds of cotton goods. The tractor-trailer combination was equipped with the head, rear, and clearance lamps required by G.S. s 20-129. Furthermore, the left side of the trailer bore two reflectors. The trailer was dark in color, covered with sleet, and much spattered with mud.
The collision occurred a few feet north of the Tar Heel Service Station, which was located on the west side of the highway and which was open for business at the time. Witnesses estimated the distance between the station and the Tar River bridge to the south at anywhere from 165 to 230 yards. The tractor-trailer combination was actually stationary upon the highway at the precise instant of the collision, the tractor being headed north in the northbound traffic lane and the trailer being 'jack-knifed' westward at such an angle as to block the entire southbound traffic lane and extend onto the dirt shoulder to the west. The only witness at the trial professing any personal knowledge as to when, how or why the tractor-trailer combination came to a standstill on the paved portion of the roadway was the defendant Dorman. The Plymouth coupe struck the left side of the stationary trailer while it was moving south along the southbound traffic lane at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour.
There was sharp conflict in the evidence of the parties with respect to what lights Dorman was displaying at the time named in the pleadings. Witnesses for Thomas and Watson testified, in substance, that the only lights burning on the tractor-trailer combination were the headlights of the tractor, and that they pointed to the north along the northbound traffic lane. Dorman testified, however, that the head, rear, and clearance lights on the tractor-trailer combination were fully displayed.
Thomas and Watson presented evidence tending to show that right after the accident Dorman told police officers that the truck and trailer had been parked at the Tar Heel Service Station and that the collision happened in this manner:
Watson and Thomas were overtaken by the rain and sleet while en route from Roanoke Rapids to their homes in Rocky Mount. Watson testified, in substance, that he drove his Plymouth coupe in a southerly direction along the southbound traffic lane with the utmost caution on account of the state of the highway and weather; that his car proceeded at a speed of about 20 miles per hour, and he could have stopped it at any time within a space not exceeding 35 or 40 feet by applying his brakes, which were in excellent condition; that he observed the headlights of the Thurston Tractor before he crossed the Tar River bridge, and noted that they were projected northward along the northbound traffic lane; that such projection of the headlights combined with the darkness, rain, and sleet to prevent him from ascertaining whether the tractor was moving or standing still; that as he approached the tractor its headlights 'stayed the same without blinking or change', and he assumed under the circumstances that it was a motor vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction which he was meeting and about to pass; that he drove his Plymouth coupe with the headlight beams tilted downward so as to see better in the darkness, rain, and sleet, and so as not to project a glaring light to motorists in his front; that his headlights so arranged enabled him to see to the front clearly for 150 feet despite the inclement weather, except when meeting a motor vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction; that as he approached the tractor he could see up to its headlights perfectly, but could not see anything beyond such headlights except blackness, which he 'took to be night'; that 'there were no lights of any kind' or anything else in the southbound traffic lane to indicate the presence of the unlighted trailer in his pathway when he approached and passed the tractor and crashed against the left side of the trailer; and that he did not recall passing the headlights of the tractor because when he hit the trailer he 'had a slight concussion and it knocked everything completely blank.' Thomas gave evidence in accord with that of Watson and stated expressly that he 'did not know there was going to be an accident until just about 10 feet before' it happened. Moreover, J. B. Williford, a police officer called to the stand by Watson, testified that 'there was no way for a southbound car to have run around' the tractor and trailer on either side.
Thurston Motor Lines and Dorman presented evidence tending to show that both the motor in the tractor and the lighting system of the tractor-trailer combination were in perfect mechanical condition at the time in controversy. Dorman was the only eyewitness testifying in behalf of himself and his employer. He denied that the tractor and trailer had been parked at the Tar Heel Service Station prior to the collision. He testified further that he drove the tractor and trailer combination to his left half of the highway with a view to going onto the service station premises; that he stopped temporarily on such half of the highway and ascertained that he could not 'get between the pumps and other vehicles that were sitting there'; that he thereupon put the tractor-trailer combination into motion and undertook 'to get back across the road' to the northbound traffic lane to resume his northward journey; that his motor unaccountably stopped causing the tractor-trailer combination to stall on the highway after the tractor had crossed the center line and headed north, but before the trailer had cleared the southbound traffic lane; that at about the same time he became able to see the lights of the approaching Plymouth several hundred yards to the north; that the headlights of the tractor were pointing northward with the beams tilted downward, and he did not attempt to warn the operator of the Plymouth of his situation by blinking his headlights or otherwise because he deemed it wiser to try to start the tractor and pull the trailer onto the northbound traffic lane; and that in consequence he devoted all of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial