Cole v. Fletcher Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cole v. Fletcher Lumber Co.

55 S.E.2d 86, 230 N.C. 616, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 21, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 86 (Cole v. Fletcher Lumber Co.) 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

Cole v. Fletcher Lumber Co., 55 S.E.2d 86, 230 N.C. 616, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 405 (N.C. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

*617 Peb Cubiam.

"While the plaintiffs allege, and offered evidence tending to show that the driver of the truck of defendant failed to observe the requirements of statute G.S. 20-151, in respect to giving way to overtaking vehicle, and G.S. 20-153 in respect to turning at intersection, and G.S. 20-154 in respect to signals on turning from a direct line, the evidence offered by plaintiffs is equally clear in showing that the collision occurred when plaintiff, Eleanor Cole, was attempting to overtake and pass the truck proceeding in the same direction at an intersection of highway, without permission so to do by a traffic or police officer, — -in violation of provisions of G.S. 20-150 (c), limiting the “privilege on overtaking and passing,” as averred by defendant. Such violation of the statute is negligence per se, Murray v. R. R. Co., 218 N.C. 392, 11 S.E. 2d 326; Donivant v. Swaim, 229 N.C. 114, 47 S.E. 2d 707. Defendant pleads it, among other things, as contributory negligence. And on this record it is clear that such negligence on the part of plaintiff contributed to the injury as the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes of the •collision, and its consequences. This is sufficient to bar plaintiffs’ right to recover. See Austin v. Overton, 222 N.C. 89, 21 S.E. 2d 887.

Thus upon careful consideration thereof, the evidence shown in the record on this appeal indicates that the judgments as of nonsuit were properly entered.

Hence, the judgments are

Affirmed.

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

*617 Peb Cubiam.

"While the plaintiffs allege, and offered evidence tending to show that the driver of the truck of defendant failed to observe the requirements of statute G.S. 20-151, in respect to giving way to overtaking vehicle, and G.S. 20-153 in respect to turning at intersection, and G.S. 20-154 in respect to signals on turning from a direct line, the evidence offered by plaintiffs is equally clear in showing that the collision occurred when plaintiff, Eleanor Cole, was attempting to overtake and pass the truck proceeding in the same direction at an intersection of highway, without permission so to do by a traffic or police officer, — -in violation of provisions of G.S. 20-150 (c), limiting the “privilege on overtaking and passing,” as averred by defendant. Such violation of the statute is negligence per se, Murray v. R. R. Co., 218 N.C. 392, 11 S.E. 2d 326; Donivant v. Swaim, 229 N.C. 114, 47 S.E. 2d 707. Defendant pleads it, among other things, as contributory negligence. And on this record it is clear that such negligence on the part of plaintiff contributed to the injury as the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes of the •collision, and its consequences. This is sufficient to bar plaintiffs’ right to recover. See Austin v. Overton, 222 N.C. 89, 21 S.E. 2d 887.

Thus upon careful consideration thereof, the evidence shown in the record on this appeal indicates that the judgments as of nonsuit were properly entered.

Hence, the judgments are

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E.2d 86, 230 N.C. 616, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-fletcher-lumber-co-nc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack