Rice v. Rigsby
136 S.E.2d 35, 261 N.C. 687, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 558
Opinion
The testimony of both plaintiff and defendant that defendant was neither drunk nor under the influence of any intoxicant at the time his automobile overturned and injured plaintiff is set at naught by the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that defendant was operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage and that such operation was the proximate cause of his injuries. The opinion in Davis v. Rigsby, supra, is controlling here. The motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rice v. Rigsby, 136 S.E.2d 35, 261 N.C. 687, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 558 (N.C. 1964).
136 S.E.2d 35 (Rice v. Rigsby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Atwood Ex Rel. Hayes v. Holland
148 S.E.2d 851 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Southern National Bank of NC v. Lindsey
142 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)