Walker v. American Bakeries Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 383,383 |
| Citation | 67 S.E.2d 459,234 N.C. 440 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALKER, v. AMERICAN BAKERIES CO. |
John Hugh Williams, Concord, for plaintiff, appellee.
Hartsell & Hartsell, Concord, for defendant, appellant.
The defendant deems the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to carry the case to the jury foreclosed against it by prior decisions. Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538; Pridgen v. Produce Co., 199 N.C. 560, 155 S.E. 247; Stevens v. Rostan, 196 N.C. 314, 145 S.E. 555. For this reason, it does not assign as error the refusal of the trial judge to dismiss the action upon a compulsory nonsuit.
Its counsel earnestly contend, however, that the judge committed error in giving the jury this instruction: 'The court charges you if there was a solid line and if the plaintiff had a clear unobstructed view for a distance of 500 feet or more, the law did not require him to wait until he got away from this line before he could pass.'
The driver of an automobile desiring to pass an overtaken vehicle must observe the statutory regulations which prohibit passing at certain places on the highway. Two of these regulations forbid the overtaking and passing of vehicles upon curves in the highway where specified conditions exist. They are as follows:
1. 'The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another vehicle proceeding in the same direction * * * upon a curve in the highway where the driver's view along the highway is obstructed within a distance of five hundred feet.' G.S. § 20-150(b).
2. 'The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the center line of a highway * * * upon a curve in the highway where such center line has been placed upon such highway by the state highway and public works commission, and is visible.' G.S. § 20-150(d).
These regulations are parts of the same statute. It is a basic rule of statutory construction that 'the various provisions of an act should be read so that all may, if possible, have their due and conjoint effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent and harmonious whole.' 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, section 363. See, also, in this connection: Rice v. Denny Roll & Panel Co., 199 N.C. 154, 154 S.E. 69; Jones v. Board of Education, 185 N.C. 303, 117 S.E. 37.
When this rule is applied in this case, it is evident that the statutory provisions under consideration are harmonious rather than conflictive. They are not designed to regulate the behaviour of the operator of an overtaking automobile in any event unless he is traveling upon a curve in the highway. Whether the one statutory regulation or the other applies to the driver of an overtaking vehicle proceeding upon a curve in the highway depends on whether the curve is marked by a visible center line...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickson v. Rucho
...effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent and harmonious whole." Walker v. Am. Bakeries Co., 234 N.C. 440, 442, 67 S.E.2d 459, 461 (1951) (quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes § 363 (1944) ); see FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, ......
-
Hurley v. Miller
...or from an alley, private road, or driveway. Regarding the issue of contributory negligence, plaintiffs, relying on Walker v. Bakeries Co., 234 N.C. 440, 67 S.E.2d 459 (1951), argue that they "requested that the jury be instructed that 'Mrs. Hurley ... is not required to anticipate that the......
-
HUNTINGTON PROPERTIES v. Currituck County
...effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent and harmonious whole.'" Walker v. Bakeries Co., 234 N.C. 440, 442, 67 S.E.2d 459, 461 (1951) (quoting 50 Am.Jur. Statutes § 363). Portions of the same statute dealing with the same subject matter are "`to b......
-
Rushing v. Polk, 251
...of other cars, pedestrians and property on the highway. Powell v. Clark, 255 N.C. 707, 710, 122 S.E.2d 706; Walker v. American Bakeries Co., 234 N.C. 440, 443, 67 S.E.2d 459. The presence and the crossing of a yellow line are evidential details in the totality of circumstances in the instan......