Hill v. Jones

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Hill v. Jones

205 S.E.2d 737, 22 N.C. App. 189, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2275

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 1974

DocketNo. 7418DC182

StatusPublished

This text of 205 S.E.2d 737 (Hill v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Jones, 205 S.E.2d 737, 22 N.C. App. 189, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2275 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Plaintiff brings forward only one exception, and we feel that it is well taken. The motion for directed verdict should have been denied inasmuch as plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, was sufficient to create an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.

In the case before us, the evidence of plaintiff gives rise to at least an inference that defendant did not exercise due care in changing lanes and failing to observe adequately the motorists in both lanes in front of him, and that the lack of due care was a proximate cause of the accident.

Nor do we think that the evidence discloses contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part so clearly that no other conclusion can be drawn therefrom, as must be the case for defendant to prevail on a motion for a directed verdict based on plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a matter of law. Smith v. Coach Lines, 12 N.C. App. 25, 182 S.E. 2d 4 (1971), cert. denied 279 N.C. 395 (1971). Where, as here, more than one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the issue should be submitted to the jury. Maness v. Construction Co., 10 N.C. App. 592, 179 S.E. 2d 816 (1971), cert. denied 278 N.C. 522 (1971).

For the reasons stated, plaintiff is entitled to a

New trial.

Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Plaintiff brings forward only one exception, and we feel that it is well taken. The motion for directed verdict should have been denied inasmuch as plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, was sufficient to create an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.

In the case before us, the evidence of plaintiff gives rise to at least an inference that defendant did not exercise due care in changing lanes and failing to observe adequately the motorists in both lanes in front of him, and that the lack of due care was a proximate cause of the accident.

Nor do we think that the evidence discloses contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part so clearly that no other conclusion can be drawn therefrom, as must be the case for defendant to prevail on a motion for a directed verdict based on plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a matter of law. Smith v. Coach Lines, 12 N.C. App. 25, 182 S.E. 2d 4 (1971), cert. denied 279 N.C. 395 (1971). Where, as here, more than one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the issue should be submitted to the jury. Maness v. Construction Co., 10 N.C. App. 592, 179 S.E. 2d 816 (1971), cert. denied 278 N.C. 522 (1971).

For the reasons stated, plaintiff is entitled to a

New trial.

Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 737, 22 N.C. App. 189, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-jones-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack