Glazener v. Safety Transit Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Glazener v. Safety Transit Lines, Inc.

146 S.E. 134, 196 N.C. 504, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 9, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 134 (Glazener v. Safety Transit Lines, 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

Glazener v. Safety Transit Lines, Inc., 146 S.E. 134, 196 N.C. 504, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 28 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CuriaM.

There is no error in tbe judgment overruling appellant’s demurrer to tbe complaint, upon tbe ground, first, that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, second, that there is a misjoinder therein both of parties and causes of action.

Tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, taken to be true for tbe purposes of this appeal, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against both defendants. Plaintiff, while riding as a guest in an automobile driven by defendant, T. C. Henderson, was injured as tbe result of a collision between said automobile and a. bus owned and operated by defendant, Tbe Safety Transit Lines, Inc., on a State Highway. Upon tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was tbe joint and concurrent negligence of tbe defendants. Upon these facts they are liable as joint tort-feasors. Lineberger v. City of Gastonia, ante, 445; Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421.

In Ballinger v. Thomas et al., 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761, it is said: “That one who is riding in an automobile, tbe driver of which 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, is fully established by our own decisions, and tbe great weight of authority elsewhere.” See cases cited.

. There are no inconsistent allegations with respect to tbe negligence of tbe defendants in this case, as there were in Ballinger v. Thomas. Nor is tbe allegation that tbe joint and concurrent negligence of defendants was tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, merely a conclusion of law by tbe pleader. Tbe facts with respect to tbe negligence *506 of both defendants are alleged in the complaint, specifically and in detail. Upon these facts plaintiff is entitled to recover of either or both of the defendants.

The action is remanded to the Superior Court of Transylvania County, to the end that defendants may file answers to the complaint, if they are so advised. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Pee CuriaM.

There is no error in tbe judgment overruling appellant’s demurrer to tbe complaint, upon tbe ground, first, that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, second, that there is a misjoinder therein both of parties and causes of action.

Tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, taken to be true for tbe purposes of this appeal, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against both defendants. Plaintiff, while riding as a guest in an automobile driven by defendant, T. C. Henderson, was injured as tbe result of a collision between said automobile and a. bus owned and operated by defendant, Tbe Safety Transit Lines, Inc., on a State Highway. Upon tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was tbe joint and concurrent negligence of tbe defendants. Upon these facts they are liable as joint tort-feasors. Lineberger v. City of Gastonia, ante, 445; Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421.

In Ballinger v. Thomas et al., 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761, it is said: “That one who is riding in an automobile, tbe driver of which 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, is fully established by our own decisions, and tbe great weight of authority elsewhere.” See cases cited.

. There are no inconsistent allegations with respect to tbe negligence of tbe defendants in this case, as there were in Ballinger v. Thomas. Nor is tbe allegation that tbe joint and concurrent negligence of defendants was tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, merely a conclusion of law by tbe pleader. Tbe facts with respect to tbe negligence *506 of both defendants are alleged in the complaint, specifically and in detail. Upon these facts plaintiff is entitled to recover of either or both of the defendants.

The action is remanded to the Superior Court of Transylvania County, to the end that defendants may file answers to the complaint, if they are so advised. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 134, 196 N.C. 504, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazener-v-safety-transit-lines-inc-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack