Patterson v. . Ritchie

164 S.E. 117, 202 N.C. 725, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 203
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 18, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 117 (Patterson v. . Ritchie) 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
Patterson v. . Ritchie, 164 S.E. 117, 202 N.C. 725, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 203 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.

Conceding without deciding that the family-purpose doctrine adopted in this State with respect to the use of automobiles (Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C., 759, 158 S. E., 491) is applicable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered by plaintiff *727 fails to show that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant’s husband, as alleged in the complaint. For this reason, there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit made in apt time as provided by statute. C. S., 567.

All the evidence shows that defendant’s husband, driving the automobile in which plaintiff’s intestate was riding as his guest, on a State highway, in the midst of heavy traffic, was suddenly confronted by a situation, caused by the truck which was approaching him from the opposite direction, in which he was required to act quickly for the safety of himself and of Ms guest. Under the circumstances as shown by all the evidence, he was not negligent in swerving the automobile suddenly to his right, thus causing it to leave the hard surface and to run on the shoulder of the highway. The collision which occurred within a short distance of the automobile with the post which was standing beside the highway, was an accident, regrettable in its consequences not only to his guest but also to the driver. As the fatal injuries of his guest could not under the circumstances have been reasonably avoided, these injuries must be attributed to the unavoidable accident, and not to the negligence of defendant’s husband. Neither the defendant nor her husband, upon the evidence appearing in the record, can be held liable to the plaintiff in this action. The judgment is

Reversed.

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

Related

Williams v. Standard Supply Co.
312 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. North Carolina, 1970)
Williams v. Boulerice
149 S.E.2d 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Forgy v. Schwartz
136 S.E.2d 668 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Crowe v. Crowe
129 S.E.2d 585 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Bondurant v. Mastin
113 S.E.2d 292 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Wells v. Engle
177 F. Supp. 336 (M.D. North Carolina, 1959)
Smith v. Pate
97 S.E.2d 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Henderson v. Henderson
80 S.E.2d 383 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Ingle v. . Cassady
180 S.E. 562 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Poplin v. . Adickes
166 S.E. 908 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.E. 117, 202 N.C. 725, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-ritchie-nc-1932.