Hines v. Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hines v. Brown

119 S.E.2d 182, 254 N.C. 447, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 465

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 12, 1961

Docket314

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 119 S.E.2d 182 (Hines v. Brown) 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

Hines v. Brown, 119 S.E.2d 182, 254 N.C. 447, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 465 (N.C. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Higgins, J.

The evidence in this case establishes- the original defendant’s negligence. Likewise it establishes the plaintiff’s responsibility for any negligence on the part of the additional defendant Boone. As her agent, acting in her presence and under her control, his negligence is imputable to her.

The nonsuit must be sustained, if at all, upon the ground that Boone’s negligence was one of the proximate causes of the accident, and that no reasonable inference to the contrary may be drawn from the facts in evidence. Bradham v. Trucking Co., 243 N.C. 708, 91 S.E. 2d 891; Badders v. Lassiter, 240, N.C. 413, 82 S.E. 2d 357; Hinshaw v. Pepper, 210 N.C. 573, 187 S.E. 786.

The original defendant’s automobile was parked in plaintiff’s lane of traffic without lights, except for .a flashlight by which a passenger was examining a road map. Boone saw this light when he was 50 feet away, yet he did not apply his brakes until he was 15 or 20 feet from the rear of the vehicle — too late to avoid the collision. The investigating officer testified that skid marks 12 feet in length stopped at the point of impact. This physical evidence emphasizes Boone’s failure to apply brakes until he was too close to the Ford automobile to stop short or to turn either-to the right or left, though ample unobstructed space permitted.

The operator of a motor vehicle in good condition, with good lights and good brakes, on a straight, level and unobstructed highway should have seen a vehicle parked in his driving lane in time to have avoided it by stopping or by driving to the one side or the other. The evidence discloses nothing by way of legal excuse for the failure. The darkness of the night should have increased the driver’s vigilence. “The law charges a nocturnal motorist, as it does every other person, with the duty of exercising ordinary care for his own safety (citing cases) ... It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle not merely *450 to look, but to keep an outlook in the direction of travel; and he is held to the duty of seeing what he ought to have seen.” Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E. 2d 825.

In fixing driver responsibility, Chief Justice Winborne, in Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E. 2d 804, Justice Parker, in Carrigan v. Dover, supra, Chief Justice Devin, in McClamrock v. Packing Co., 238 N.C. 648, 78 S.E. 2d 749, and Chief Justice Stacy, in Tyson V. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251, have stated the ground rules. The evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff shows her driver, for whose conduct she is responsible, failed to exercise due care in the particulars hereinbefore indicated. The failure was one of the proximate causes of the accident and injury. Contributory negligence appears as a matter of law from the plaintiff’s evidence. The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

Higgins, J.

The evidence in this case establishes- the original defendant’s negligence. Likewise it establishes the plaintiff’s responsibility for any negligence on the part of the additional defendant Boone. As her agent, acting in her presence and under her control, his negligence is imputable to her.

The nonsuit must be sustained, if at all, upon the ground that Boone’s negligence was one of the proximate causes of the accident, and that no reasonable inference to the contrary may be drawn from the facts in evidence. Bradham v. Trucking Co., 243 N.C. 708, 91 S.E. 2d 891; Badders v. Lassiter, 240, N.C. 413, 82 S.E. 2d 357; Hinshaw v. Pepper, 210 N.C. 573, 187 S.E. 786.

The original defendant’s automobile was parked in plaintiff’s lane of traffic without lights, except for .a flashlight by which a passenger was examining a road map. Boone saw this light when he was 50 feet away, yet he did not apply his brakes until he was 15 or 20 feet from the rear of the vehicle — too late to avoid the collision. The investigating officer testified that skid marks 12 feet in length stopped at the point of impact. This physical evidence emphasizes Boone’s failure to apply brakes until he was too close to the Ford automobile to stop short or to turn either-to the right or left, though ample unobstructed space permitted.

The operator of a motor vehicle in good condition, with good lights and good brakes, on a straight, level and unobstructed highway should have seen a vehicle parked in his driving lane in time to have avoided it by stopping or by driving to the one side or the other. The evidence discloses nothing by way of legal excuse for the failure. The darkness of the night should have increased the driver’s vigilence. “The law charges a nocturnal motorist, as it does every other person, with the duty of exercising ordinary care for his own safety (citing cases) ... It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle not merely *450 to look, but to keep an outlook in the direction of travel; and he is held to the duty of seeing what he ought to have seen.” Carrigan v. Dover, 251 N.C. 97, 110 S.E. 2d 825.

In fixing driver responsibility, Chief Justice Winborne, in Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E. 2d 804, Justice Parker, in Carrigan v. Dover, supra, Chief Justice Devin, in McClamrock v. Packing Co., 238 N.C. 648, 78 S.E. 2d 749, and Chief Justice Stacy, in Tyson V. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251, have stated the ground rules. The evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff shows her driver, for whose conduct she is responsible, failed to exercise due care in the particulars hereinbefore indicated. The failure was one of the proximate causes of the accident and injury. Contributory negligence appears as a matter of law from the plaintiff’s evidence. The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E.2d 182, 254 N.C. 447, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-brown-nc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack