Brown v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

179 S.E. 25, 208 N.C. 57, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 314

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 20, 1935
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The theory of the demurrer and the court’s ruling is, that the negligence alleged against the owner of the automobile, ex necessitate, insulates the negligence of the demurring defendants as a proximate cause or one of the proximate causes of plaintiff’s injury. George v. R. R., 207 N. C., 457; Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761. The conclusion is a non sequitur on the allegations of the complaint. Keller v. R. R., 205 N. C., 269, 171 S. E., 73; Brown v. R. R., 204 N. C., 25, 167 S. E., 479; Sanders v. R. R., 201 N. C., 672, 161 S. E., 320; Godfrey v. Coach Co., 201 N. C., 264, 159 S. E., 412; Campbell v. R. R., 201 N. C., 102, 159 S. E., 27; Ballinger v. Thomas, supra; Hanes v. Utilities Co., 191 N. C., 13, 131 S. E., 402; White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564; Duffy v. R. R., 144 N. C., 26, 56 S. E., 557; 25 R. C. L., 1292; 90 A. L. R., 631.

It is well settled by tbe decisions bere and elsewhere that one who is riding in an automobile, tbe driver of wbicb is not bis agent or servant, nor under bis control, and who is injured by tbe joint or combined negligence of a third person and tbe driver, may recover of either or both, upon proper allegations, for tbe injuries thus inflicted through such concurring negligence. Hanes v. Utilities Co., supra; White v. Realty Co., supra; Wood v. Public Service Corp., 174 N. C., 697, 94 S. E., 459; Pusey v. R. R., 181 N. C., 137, 106 S. E., 452; Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N. C., 611, 83 S. E., 814; Harton v. Tel. Co., 141 N. C., 455, 54 S. E., 299; Carterville v. Cook, 129 Ill., 152, 16 Am. St. Rep., 248, and note.

Tbe rule is stated in Matthews v. Delaware L. & W. R. Co., 56 N. J. L., 34, 27 Atl., 919, 22 L. R. A., 261, by Magie, J.-, as follows: “If two or more persons owe to another tbe same duty, and by their common neglect of that duty be is injured, doubtless tbe tort is joint, and upon well-settled principles each, any, or all of tbe tort-feasors may be held. Rut when each of two or more persons owes to another a separate duty wbicb each wrongfully neglects to perform, then although tbe duties were diverse and disconnected and tbe negligence of each was without concert, if such several neglects concurred and united together in causing injury, tbe tort is equally joint and tbe tort-feasors are subject to joint and several liability.”

Tbe allegations of tbe present complaint, properly interpreted, seem to bring tbe case within this principle.

Reversed.