Garner ex rel. Garner v. Whitley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Garner ex rel. Garner v. Whitley

145 S.E.2d 910, 266 N.C. 360, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1350

DecidedJanuary 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E.2d 910 (Garner ex rel. Garner v. Whitley) 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

Garner ex rel. Garner v. Whitley, 145 S.E.2d 910, 266 N.C. 360, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1350 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CuRiam.

Plaintiffs contend that the judge erred in his instructions to the jury with respect to lookout, control and sudden emergency. We find these instructions in substantial compliance with the rules laid down by this Court. Plaintiffs further contend that the court erred in failing to charge with respect to reckless driving and the duty of defendant to decrease speed. These legal principles do not clearly apply to the evidence adduced. There is no evidence that defendant did or did not reduce speed. The only evidence of defendant’s speed is her statement that she was travel-ling at 45 to 50 miles per hour. The speed limit was 55. The evidence is in sharp conflict as to which driver failed to dim lights and which was operating in the wrong lane of travel. The jury resolved these matters in favor of defendant and found that she, in the sudden emergency created by Boone’s wrongful conduct, acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the circumstances. The verdict is supported by evidence.

No error.

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

Pee CuRiam.

Plaintiffs contend that the judge erred in his instructions to the jury with respect to lookout, control and sudden emergency. We find these instructions in substantial compliance with the rules laid down by this Court. Plaintiffs further contend that the court erred in failing to charge with respect to reckless driving and the duty of defendant to decrease speed. These legal principles do not clearly apply to the evidence adduced. There is no evidence that defendant did or did not reduce speed. The only evidence of defendant’s speed is her statement that she was travel-ling at 45 to 50 miles per hour. The speed limit was 55. The evidence is in sharp conflict as to which driver failed to dim lights and which was operating in the wrong lane of travel. The jury resolved these matters in favor of defendant and found that she, in the sudden emergency created by Boone’s wrongful conduct, acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the circumstances. The verdict is supported by evidence.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E.2d 910, 266 N.C. 360, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-ex-rel-garner-v-whitley-nc-1966.