Smith v. House

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Smith v. House

195 S.E.2d 44, 17 N.C. App. 567, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1407

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 14, 1973

DocketNo. 7311DC34

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.E.2d 44 (Smith v. House) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. House, 195 S.E.2d 44, 17 N.C. App. 567, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1407 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error relates to the Court’s conclusion that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s negligence and plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. Defendant has not brought forward the evidence at trial in his record on appeal and does not dispute the findings of fact in the judgment. Defendant contends that as a matter of law from the findings of fact in the judgment, either plaintiff was contributorily negligent or the injuries he sustained were the result of an unavoidable accident.

We find no merit in defendant’s contention. From the finding of fact in the judgment, plaintiff was driving on a dominant street at a lawful rate of speed. When he was approximately one car length from the intersection, plaintiff observed defendant’s automobile entering the intersection from North Avenue. Under these facts, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent or the accident unavoidable. See Hathcock v. Lowder, 16 N.C. App. 255, 192 S.E. 2d 124.

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.

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

BROCK, Judge.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error relates to the Court’s conclusion that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s negligence and plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. Defendant has not brought forward the evidence at trial in his record on appeal and does not dispute the findings of fact in the judgment. Defendant contends that as a matter of law from the findings of fact in the judgment, either plaintiff was contributorily negligent or the injuries he sustained were the result of an unavoidable accident.

We find no merit in defendant’s contention. From the finding of fact in the judgment, plaintiff was driving on a dominant street at a lawful rate of speed. When he was approximately one car length from the intersection, plaintiff observed defendant’s automobile entering the intersection from North Avenue. Under these facts, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent or the accident unavoidable. See Hathcock v. Lowder, 16 N.C. App. 255, 192 S.E. 2d 124.

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.E.2d 44, 17 N.C. App. 567, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-house-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack