Ward v. Bowles
| Decision Date | 10 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 676.,676. |
| Citation | 45 S.E.2d 354,228 N.C. 273 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WARD. v. BOWLES et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Geo. A. Shuford, Special Judge.
Action by A. C. Ward against Marshall Bowles and another to recover damages for injuries sustained when struck by taxicab. From a judgment dismissing the action as in case of nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from taxicab-pe-destrian collision.
The plaintiff was, at the time of the accident complained of, a police officer of the City of High Point. About 11:00 p.m. on 19 September 1943 he started across North Main Street of High Point at the south end of the Main Street bridge. He was going from east to west, within the lane marked for pedestrians, on the green traffic light. When he got about midway the street, the light changed to red, and he stopped at the edge of the center or left-turn vehicular traffic lane.
He saw the corporate defendant's taxicab being operated by defendant Bowles, at thenorth end of the bridge, approaching in the left-turn lane. He turned to look to the south and as he looked back to the north the defendant's taxi "was right on" him. "The driver of the cab cut short and just about half of the front of the cab was in the northbound fast lane" when it struck plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered certain personal injuries which he says developed and grew worse as time passed.
At the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff, the court, on motion of defendants, dismissed the action as in case of nonsuit and plaintiff appealed.
Haworth & Mattocks, of High Point, for plaintiff appellant.
Gold, McAnally & Gold, of High Point, for defendant appellees.
On this record plaintiff was lawfully in the intersection, standing in a position where he was clearly visible to the driver of the defendant's taxicab as the latter approached the intersection. The taxi driver, had he been keeping a proper lookout, could have seen him in ample time to avoid a collision. Instead he "cut the corner" in violation of G.S. § 20-153(a) without giving any signal or warning of his approach. The collision resulted. These circumstances, unrebutted as they are on this record, warrant an inference of negligence and are sufficient to require the submission of appropriate issues to the jury.
The defendant Bowles, it is true, was at the time driving on a green light, but that fact did not relieve him of the duty to exercise proper care for the safety of a pedestrian who had lawfully entered and was standing in the intersection when he approached.
The facts are not such as to require or permit the conclusion that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGill v. Bison Fast Freight, Inc.
... ... the right to waive his claim against his employer and pursue his remedy against the alleged tort-feasor by common law action for negligence.' Ward ... v. Bowles, 228 N.C. 273, 275, 45 S.E.2d 354, 355 ... Ordinarily, an executor or administrator has the right to compromise any ... ...
-
Jones v. Schaffer
...and to operate it at such speed and in such manner as not to endanger or be likely to endanger others upon the highway. Ward v. Bowles, 228 N.C. 273, 45 S.E.2d 354. Nevertheless, in the absence of anything which gives or should give him notice to the contrary, a motorist has the right to as......
-
Easter-Rozzelle v. City of Charlotte
...or in situations in which the employee had yet to file a claim at all.3 A variation of the latter situation arose in Ward v. Bowles , 228 N.C. 273, 45 S.E.2d 354 (1947). There, after the plaintiff was injured in a car accident while in the course of his employment, he brought a negligence a......
-
Norris v. Johnson
...liability. Marshburn v. Patterson, 241 N.C. 441, 85 S.E.2d 683; Cox v. Hennis Freight Lines, 236 N.C. 72, 72 S.E.2d 25; Ward v. Bowles, 228 N.C. 273, 45 S.E.2d 354. The jury could, in its attempt to resolve the conflicts in the testimony, find that the operator of each motor vehicle was neg......