Martin v. Martin

133 S.E.2d 69, 260 N.C. 442, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 735
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Martin v. Martin. Read the opinion of the Court — 263 N.C. 86
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 6, 1963·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Ordinarily a guest in .an .automobile is justified in .assuming that the .driver will maintain a proper lookout for approaching traffic and i's required to warn .him of danger only if a reasonably prudent person would, under .the same circumstances, realize the danger .and give warning of it. Watters v. Parrish, 252 N.C. 787, 115 S.E. 2d 1. However, the rule is .different when, as here, the driver delegates to the guest the duty to. look and the latter assumes to do so. In this event, a proper regard for his own safety require® the guest to watch for approaching traffic. Should he, without looking, erroneously inform the driver that it is safe to proceed, he is guilty of negligence which will bar hi.s recovery if a collision results. Such are the facts of this case.

The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

Martin v. Martin, 133 S.E.2d 69, 260 N.C. 442, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 735 (N.C. 1963).

133 S.E.2d 69 (Martin v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Watters Ex Rel. Watters v. Parrish
115 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)