Black v. Wilkinson
This text of 153 S.E.2d 333 (Black v. Wilkinson) 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.
Opinion
Taking the plaintiff’s evidence as true, as we are required to do in considering the correctness of the judgment of nonsuit, it is sufficient to support a finding of negligence by the defendant, which was the proximate cause of the collisions. Driving into the plaintiff’s lane of travel under such circumstances would constitute negligence by the defendant. G.S. 20-154(a); Raper v. Byrum, 265 N.C. 269, 144 S.E. 2d 38. Sugg v. Baker, 261 *691 N.C. 579, 135 S.E. 2d 565; Tart v. Register, 257 N.C. 161, 125 S.E. 2d 754; Mitchell v. White, 256 N.C. 437, 124 S.E. 2d 137.
A judgment of nonsuit may not properly be entered on the ground of contributory negligence unless the plaintiff’s own evidence shows such negligence by him so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be drawn therefrom. Pruett v. Inman, 252 N.C. 520, 114 S.E. 2d 360. If the facts were as the plaintiff testified them to be, he was faced with a sudden emergency and his action in running upon the snow covered shoulder in order to avoid colliding with the defendant’s vehicle would not constitute negligence. See Bondurant v. Mastin, 252 N.C. 190, 113 S.E. 2d 292.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
153 S.E.2d 333, 269 N.C. 689, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-wilkinson-nc-1967.