Hollingsworth v. Grier

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hollingsworth v. Grier

55 S.E.2d 806, 231 N.C. 108, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 465

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 9, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 806 (Hollingsworth v. Grier) 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

Hollingsworth v. Grier, 55 S.E.2d 806, 231 N.C. 108, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 465 (N.C. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The question for decision is the sufficiency of the complaint to survive the demurrer. The trial court thought it good as against the challenge. We are inclined to a different view.

True it is, a complaint may not be overthrown by demurrer on the ground of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence unless such negligence appear patently and unquestionably upon the face of the complaint. Ramsey v. Nash Furn. Co., 209 N.C. 165, 183 S.E. 536. But here, we think such negligence does so appear on the face of the complaint. The plaintiff says be saw the defendant’s automobile too late to avoid a collision. This was negligence on bis part which contributed to the injury, as be was evidently “outrunning bis headlights” or inattentive to bis own safety. Note the allegation is not that the plaintiff was unable to see the defendant’s car in time to avoid a collision, but that be did not see it in time. He omits to state whether be was keeping a proper lookout or the collision was without fault on bis part. The subject is fully discussed in the following, recent cases: Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251; Riggs v. Oil Co., 228 N.C. 774, 47 S.E. 2d 254; Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E. 2d 623; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E. 2d 355.

No doubt the plaintiff may desire to reform bis pleading.

Reversed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The question for decision is the sufficiency of the complaint to survive the demurrer. The trial court thought it good as against the challenge. We are inclined to a different view.

True it is, a complaint may not be overthrown by demurrer on the ground of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence unless such negligence appear patently and unquestionably upon the face of the complaint. Ramsey v. Nash Furn. Co., 209 N.C. 165, 183 S.E. 536. But here, we think such negligence does so appear on the face of the complaint. The plaintiff says be saw the defendant’s automobile too late to avoid a collision. This was negligence on bis part which contributed to the injury, as be was evidently “outrunning bis headlights” or inattentive to bis own safety. Note the allegation is not that the plaintiff was unable to see the defendant’s car in time to avoid a collision, but that be did not see it in time. He omits to state whether be was keeping a proper lookout or the collision was without fault on bis part. The subject is fully discussed in the following, recent cases: Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251; Riggs v. Oil Co., 228 N.C. 774, 47 S.E. 2d 254; Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E. 2d 623; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E. 2d 355.

No doubt the plaintiff may desire to reform bis pleading.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E.2d 806, 231 N.C. 108, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-grier-nc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack