Hoover v. Odom

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hoover v. Odom

113 S.E.2d 926, 252 N.C. 459, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 588

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 27, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 S.E.2d 926 (Hoover v. Odom) 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

Hoover v. Odom, 113 S.E.2d 926, 252 N.C. 459, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 588 (N.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Cueiam.

There was no evidence in the trial below tending to show that the automobile of the defendant was being operated in a careless or negligent manner at the time of the accident. Neither was there any evidence tending to show that the defendant had any knowledge that the latch on the door of her car was defective. Likewise, there was no evidence to the effect that this door had ever come open before in the manner in which it did at the time the plaintiff sustained her injuries.

The general rule with respect to injuries suffered by a guest as the result of a defect in the condition of an automobile is concisely stated in the case of Helton v. Prater’s Admr., 272 Ky. 574, 114 S.W. 2d 1120, and quoted with approval in Perry v. Krumpelman, 309 Ky. 745, 218 S.W. 2d 963, 9 A.L.R. 2d 1335, in which the Court said: “One who invites another to ride in his automobile is not bound to furnish a vehicle free from defects, and, unless he knows it is defective and therefore unsafe, he will not be liable for injuries received by the guest in an accident caused by the defect in the automobile and not by its negligent operation.” 9 A.L.R. 2d Anno:— Automobile Guest — Falling Through Door, 1338, et seq. See also Watts, Admr. v. Watts, 252 N.C. 352, 113 S.E. 2d 720, and cited cases.

The plaintiff has failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and, therefore, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

PeR Cueiam.

There was no evidence in the trial below tending to show that the automobile of the defendant was being operated in a careless or negligent manner at the time of the accident. Neither was there any evidence tending to show that the defendant had any knowledge that the latch on the door of her car was defective. Likewise, there was no evidence to the effect that this door had ever come open before in the manner in which it did at the time the plaintiff sustained her injuries.

The general rule with respect to injuries suffered by a guest as the result of a defect in the condition of an automobile is concisely stated in the case of Helton v. Prater’s Admr., 272 Ky. 574, 114 S.W. 2d 1120, and quoted with approval in Perry v. Krumpelman, 309 Ky. 745, 218 S.W. 2d 963, 9 A.L.R. 2d 1335, in which the Court said: “One who invites another to ride in his automobile is not bound to furnish a vehicle free from defects, and, unless he knows it is defective and therefore unsafe, he will not be liable for injuries received by the guest in an accident caused by the defect in the automobile and not by its negligent operation.” 9 A.L.R. 2d Anno:— Automobile Guest — Falling Through Door, 1338, et seq. See also Watts, Admr. v. Watts, 252 N.C. 352, 113 S.E. 2d 720, and cited cases.

The plaintiff has failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and, therefore, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E.2d 926, 252 N.C. 459, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-odom-nc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack