Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. Blue Bird Taxis, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. Blue Bird Taxis, Inc.

190 S.E. 471, 211 N.C. 324, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 83

DecidedMarch 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 471 (Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. Blue Bird Taxis, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. Blue Bird Taxis, Inc., 190 S.E. 471, 211 N.C. 324, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 83 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOn, J.

A careful reading of the record in this appeal fails to disclose any evidence at the trial in the general county court of Buncombe County, tending to show the injuries which the plaintiff suffered when be was struck by an automobile, while riding on a bicycle on a public street in the city of Asbeville, were caused by the defendants or by either of them. Neither the plaintiff, who testified as a witness in bis own behalf, nor James Lowe, who testified that be was riding on the bicycle with the plaintiff when be was struck by an automobile and thrown from the bicycle to the street, identified the automobile owned by the defendant Blue Bird Taxis, Inc., and driven by the defendant D. "W. Blankenship, as the automobile which struck the plaintiff. the accident occurred about 10 o’clock at night, and at that time many automobiles were passing on the street where the accident occurred. the presence of defendants’ automobile on the street near the place of the accident, after the accident occurred, did not alone support ’an inference that said automobile bad struck the plaintiff and caused him to be thrown to the street. All the evidence tended to show that defendants’ automobile arrived on the scene after the accident.

The plaintiff failed to sustain the burden which the law imposed upon him to establish by evidence at the trial — the truth of bis allegations.

There was error in the ruling of the judge on defendants’ assignment of error based upon their exception to the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the action by judgment of nonsuit. This assignment of error should have been sustained. The judgment is reversed and the action remanded to the Superior Court of Buncombe County, that judgment may be entered in said court in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CoNNOn, J.

A careful reading of the record in this appeal fails to disclose any evidence at the trial in the general county court of Buncombe County, tending to show the injuries which the plaintiff suffered when be was struck by an automobile, while riding on a bicycle on a public street in the city of Asbeville, were caused by the defendants or by either of them. Neither the plaintiff, who testified as a witness in bis own behalf, nor James Lowe, who testified that be was riding on the bicycle with the plaintiff when be was struck by an automobile and thrown from the bicycle to the street, identified the automobile owned by the defendant Blue Bird Taxis, Inc., and driven by the defendant D. "W. Blankenship, as the automobile which struck the plaintiff. the accident occurred about 10 o’clock at night, and at that time many automobiles were passing on the street where the accident occurred. the presence of defendants’ automobile on the street near the place of the accident, after the accident occurred, did not alone support ’an inference that said automobile bad struck the plaintiff and caused him to be thrown to the street. All the evidence tended to show that defendants’ automobile arrived on the scene after the accident.

The plaintiff failed to sustain the burden which the law imposed upon him to establish by evidence at the trial — the truth of bis allegations.

There was error in the ruling of the judge on defendants’ assignment of error based upon their exception to the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the action by judgment of nonsuit. This assignment of error should have been sustained. The judgment is reversed and the action remanded to the Superior Court of Buncombe County, that judgment may be entered in said court in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E. 471, 211 N.C. 324, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-ex-rel-adams-v-blue-bird-taxis-inc-nc-1937.