Rogers v. Carolina Garage, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rogers v. Carolina Garage, Inc.

73 S.E.2d 318, 236 N.C. 525, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 598

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 19, 1952

Docket530

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 S.E.2d 318 (Rogers v. Carolina Garage, 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

Rogers v. Carolina Garage, Inc., 73 S.E.2d 318, 236 N.C. 525, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 598 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

*527 DeyiN, C. J.

We think the allegations contained in tbe cross-complaint of defendant Carolina Garage, Inc., are insufficient to sustain its action for contribution from Blythe Bros. Co. as joint tort-feasor.

It may not be held to constitute actionable negligence that Blythe Bros. Co. parked a motor truck near but not on the highway, even though it was near where other automobiles were likely to enter the highway from a parking site beyond. To hold that parking a truck under these circumstances was sufficient to sustain the imputation of negligence, even though the view of a driver on the highway might be obscured as to the movement of automobiles beyond the highway, would be to impose an obligation on motorists which neither the statutes nor the dictates of reasonable care and precaution would seem to require. Walker v. Ill. Com. Tel. Co., 315 Ill. App. 553; Bohm v. Racette, 118 Kan. 670; Craig v. Western & Sou. Indemnity Co., 119 F. 2d 591.

The circumstances here were not such as to impose a duty on Blythe Bros. Co. to warn approaching drivers on the highway. Pender v. Trucking Co., 206 N.C. 266, 173 S.E. 336; Council v. Dickerson’s, Inc., 233 N.C. 472 (476), 64 S.E. 2d 551.

It is not contended, nor would such a position be warranted, that Blythe Bros. Co. was responsible for any negligence on the part of an employee in backing his own automobile after hours from a parking site toward the highway. Nor is it alleged that the automobile of this employee entered into the highway or came in contact with the truck of defendant Carolina Garage, Inc., or the automobile of the plaintiff.

The defendant Blythe Bros. Co. may not be held liable for a negligent breach of duty in failing to foresee that Willie Douglas, the employee referred to, or any other person, would negligently back an automobile toward the highway in such a manner as to cause the driver of an approaching vehicle to turn to the left to avoid an apprehended collision. Peoples v. Bulk, 220 N.C. 635, 18 S.E. 2d 147; Lee v. Upholstery Co., 227 N.C. 88, 40 S.E. 2d 688.

The ruling of the trial judge in sustaining the demurrer of defendant Blythe Bros. Co. is

Affirmed.

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

*527 DeyiN, C. J.

We think the allegations contained in tbe cross-complaint of defendant Carolina Garage, Inc., are insufficient to sustain its action for contribution from Blythe Bros. Co. as joint tort-feasor.

It may not be held to constitute actionable negligence that Blythe Bros. Co. parked a motor truck near but not on the highway, even though it was near where other automobiles were likely to enter the highway from a parking site beyond. To hold that parking a truck under these circumstances was sufficient to sustain the imputation of negligence, even though the view of a driver on the highway might be obscured as to the movement of automobiles beyond the highway, would be to impose an obligation on motorists which neither the statutes nor the dictates of reasonable care and precaution would seem to require. Walker v. Ill. Com. Tel. Co., 315 Ill. App. 553; Bohm v. Racette, 118 Kan. 670; Craig v. Western & Sou. Indemnity Co., 119 F. 2d 591.

The circumstances here were not such as to impose a duty on Blythe Bros. Co. to warn approaching drivers on the highway. Pender v. Trucking Co., 206 N.C. 266, 173 S.E. 336; Council v. Dickerson’s, Inc., 233 N.C. 472 (476), 64 S.E. 2d 551.

It is not contended, nor would such a position be warranted, that Blythe Bros. Co. was responsible for any negligence on the part of an employee in backing his own automobile after hours from a parking site toward the highway. Nor is it alleged that the automobile of this employee entered into the highway or came in contact with the truck of defendant Carolina Garage, Inc., or the automobile of the plaintiff.

The defendant Blythe Bros. Co. may not be held liable for a negligent breach of duty in failing to foresee that Willie Douglas, the employee referred to, or any other person, would negligently back an automobile toward the highway in such a manner as to cause the driver of an approaching vehicle to turn to the left to avoid an apprehended collision. Peoples v. Bulk, 220 N.C. 635, 18 S.E. 2d 147; Lee v. Upholstery Co., 227 N.C. 88, 40 S.E. 2d 688.

The ruling of the trial judge in sustaining the demurrer of defendant Blythe Bros. Co. is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E.2d 318, 236 N.C. 525, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-carolina-garage-inc-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack