Wilson v. Polk
| Decision Date | 08 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | 444. |
| Citation | 95 S.E. 849,175 N.C. 490 |
| Parties | WILSON v. POLK ET UX. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Webb, Judge.
Action by W. L. Wilson against William J. Polk and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.
Evidence that defendant owned the automobile which was driven by her minor son, though not establishing liability of defendant calls for explanation from defendant in an action for injuries in a collision with such automobile.
This is an action against the feme defendant to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an automobile running down the plaintiff, who was going home in a buggy drawn by a mule, in the nighttime. From a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendants appealed.
J. D McCall and Plummer Stewart, both of Charlotte, for appellants.
E. R Preston and Duckworth & Puhlman, all of Charlotte, for appellee.
The evidence for the plaintiff is that he was a guest in the buggy owned by one Thompson and was on his way home at night when he was run into by the automobile in a head-on collision; that he recognized the feme defendant in the automobile and spoke with her; that the automobile was driven by her son, and that her husband was in the conveyance at the time. It was also in evidence that the feme defendant listed the automobile as her property on the tax list, and that license was issued in her name. She offered evidence that she was not in the automobile, and that she had given her automobile to her son, who had exchanged it for a new one. There was conflict of evidence, on which the jury found that the automobile was owned by the feme defendant and her son.
There was evidence that the defendants were running the automobile at night without headlights, or with defective headlights which did not enable them to see the plaintiff in the buggy, while the defendants offered evidence that the plaintiff's buggy was on the wrong side of the road and had stopped. This was denied by evidence for plaintiff. The jury found against the defendants as to the negligence which caused the collision. There was no evidence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff who was a passenger in the buggy.
There was some evidence, irrespective of the evidence of ownership, that the car was being sent out by the wife on a mission to her farm. The court charged on this phase as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Thurston Motor Lines
...of the mere ownership of the machine is insufficient.' Thereafter in Clark v. Sweaney, 175 N.C. 280, 95 S.E. 568, and Wilson v. Polk, 175 N.C. 490, 95 S.E. 849, Clark, C. J., used language seemingly intended to restrict the decision in the Linville case, supra. But the Court did not overrul......
-
Vicksburg Gas Co. v. Ferguson
... ... Stern v. International Ry. Co., 167 A.D. 503, 153 ... N.Y.S. 520; Bogorad v. Dix, 176 A.D. 774, 162 N.Y.S ... 922; North Carolina--Wilson v. Polk, 175 N.C. 490; ... Clark v. Sweeney, 175 N.C. 280; Oregon--Kahn v ... Home Tel. & Tel. C., 78 Oreg. 308; Tennessee--Frank ... v ... ...
-
Tyree v. Tudor
...172 N.C. 203, 90 S.E. 134; Williams v. Blue, 173 N.C. 452, 92 S.E. 270; Clark v. Sweaney, 175 N.C. 282, 95 S.E. 568; Wilson v. Polk, 175 N.C. 490, 95 S.E. 849. Williams v. Blue, supra, the court said: "If it should turn out upon the trial that defendant Fannie A. Blue was exercising no cont......
-
Williams v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
... ... Nissen, 162 N.C. 95; Taylor v. Stewart, 172 ... N.C. 203; Williams v. Blue, 173 N.C. 452; ... Clark v. Sweaney, 175 N.C. 282; Wilson v. Polk, ... 175 N.C. 490." ... In ... Williams v. Blue, 173 N.C. 452, 92 S.E. 270, the ... court said: ... ...