Petrea v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Petrea v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc.

141 S.E.2d 278, 264 N.C. 230, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1158

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1965

Docket439

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 141 S.E.2d 278 (Petrea v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc.) 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

Petrea v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc., 141 S.E.2d 278, 264 N.C. 230, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1158 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A defendant who has been sued for tort may bring into the action for the purpose of enforcing contribution under G.S. 1-240 only a joint tort-feasor whom plaintiff could have sued originally in the same action. Jones v. Aircraft Co., 253 N.C. 482, 117 S.E. 2d 496; Wilson v. Massagee, 224 N.C. 705, 32 S.E. 2d 335, 156 A.L.R. 922. The law of West Virginia does not permit one spouse to sue the other in tort. Campbell v. Campbell, 145 W. Va. 245, 114 S.E. 2d 406; Poling v. Poling, 116 W. Va. 187, 179 S.E. 604. North Carolina applies the lex loci delicti.

“We have in previous decisions held claimant’s right to recover and the amount which may be recovered for personal injuries must be determined by the law of the state where the injuries were sustained; if no right of action exists there, the injured party has none which can be enforced elsewhere.” Shaw v. Lee, 258 N.C. 609, 610, 129 S.E. 2d 288, 288.

Original defendant concedes in its brief that if the rule which was followed in Shaw v. Lee, supra, is applied to this case, the decision of the court below should be affirmed. It argues, however, that we should overrule Shaw v. Lee, supra, and thus abandon our well-established conflicts rule, in order to apply the law of the state which has had “the most significant relationship or contacts with the matter in dispute” — in this case, appellant contends, North Carolina. Such an approach is referred to as the “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” theory. See Annot., Choice of law in application of automobile guest statutes, *232 95 A.L.R. 2d 12, 49. Notwithstanding that appellant’s counsel in his brief and in his argument presented his case to this court in the best possible light, the same reasons which dictated our decision in Shaw v. Lee, supra, constrain us to adhere to it.

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 Curiam.

A defendant who has been sued for tort may bring into the action for the purpose of enforcing contribution under G.S. 1-240 only a joint tort-feasor whom plaintiff could have sued originally in the same action. Jones v. Aircraft Co., 253 N.C. 482, 117 S.E. 2d 496; Wilson v. Massagee, 224 N.C. 705, 32 S.E. 2d 335, 156 A.L.R. 922. The law of West Virginia does not permit one spouse to sue the other in tort. Campbell v. Campbell, 145 W. Va. 245, 114 S.E. 2d 406; Poling v. Poling, 116 W. Va. 187, 179 S.E. 604. North Carolina applies the lex loci delicti.

“We have in previous decisions held claimant’s right to recover and the amount which may be recovered for personal injuries must be determined by the law of the state where the injuries were sustained; if no right of action exists there, the injured party has none which can be enforced elsewhere.” Shaw v. Lee, 258 N.C. 609, 610, 129 S.E. 2d 288, 288.

Original defendant concedes in its brief that if the rule which was followed in Shaw v. Lee, supra, is applied to this case, the decision of the court below should be affirmed. It argues, however, that we should overrule Shaw v. Lee, supra, and thus abandon our well-established conflicts rule, in order to apply the law of the state which has had “the most significant relationship or contacts with the matter in dispute” — in this case, appellant contends, North Carolina. Such an approach is referred to as the “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” theory. See Annot., Choice of law in application of automobile guest statutes, *232 95 A.L.R. 2d 12, 49. Notwithstanding that appellant’s counsel in his brief and in his argument presented his case to this court in the best possible light, the same reasons which dictated our decision in Shaw v. Lee, supra, constrain us to adhere to it.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 278, 264 N.C. 230, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrea-v-ryder-tank-lines-inc-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack