Starnes v. McManus

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Starnes v. McManus

140 S.E.2d 15, 263 N.C. 638, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1345

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 29, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 S.E.2d 15 (Starnes v. McManus) 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

Starnes v. McManus, 140 S.E.2d 15, 263 N.C. 638, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1345 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Shakp. J.

Undoubtedly, plaintiff proved the negligence he had effectively alleged. The allegations of reckless driving, stated almost in the words of the statute and without specification of wilful and wanton [640]*640conduct, are merely the pleader’s conclusions, which add nothing to plaintiff’s allegations of ordinary negligence. Fleming v. Drye, 253 N.C. 545, 117 S.E. 2d 416; Troxler v. Motor Lines, 240 N.C. 420, 82 S.E. 2d 342. Plaintiff likewise proved the contributory negligence of his intestate and thus barred his recovery. Blevins v. France, 244 N.C. 334, 93 S.E. 2d 549. Knowing that defendant was drunk, plaintiff’s intestate planted herself in defendant’s lane of travel to Sag him down, and there she remained after the group who saw him leave warned her that he might run over her — “and sure enough, he did.” It is obvious that the intestate failed to exercise for her own safety the care of an ordinarily prudent person and that her negligence was one of the proximate causes of her unnecessary death. “ ‘A plaintiff will not be permitted to recover for injuries resulting from a hazard he helped create.’ ” Id. at 343, 93 S.E. 2d at 556. No other reasonable inference is possible from plaintiff’s eivdence; so, the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. Holloway v. Holloway, 262 N.C. 258, 136 S.E. 2d 559; Blake v. Mallard, 262 N.C. 62, 136 S.E. 2d 214.

Reversed.

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

Shakp. J.

Undoubtedly, plaintiff proved the negligence he had effectively alleged. The allegations of reckless driving, stated almost in the words of the statute and without specification of wilful and wanton [640]*640conduct, are merely the pleader’s conclusions, which add nothing to plaintiff’s allegations of ordinary negligence. Fleming v. Drye, 253 N.C. 545, 117 S.E. 2d 416; Troxler v. Motor Lines, 240 N.C. 420, 82 S.E. 2d 342. Plaintiff likewise proved the contributory negligence of his intestate and thus barred his recovery. Blevins v. France, 244 N.C. 334, 93 S.E. 2d 549. Knowing that defendant was drunk, plaintiff’s intestate planted herself in defendant’s lane of travel to Sag him down, and there she remained after the group who saw him leave warned her that he might run over her — “and sure enough, he did.” It is obvious that the intestate failed to exercise for her own safety the care of an ordinarily prudent person and that her negligence was one of the proximate causes of her unnecessary death. “ ‘A plaintiff will not be permitted to recover for injuries resulting from a hazard he helped create.’ ” Id. at 343, 93 S.E. 2d at 556. No other reasonable inference is possible from plaintiff’s eivdence; so, the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. Holloway v. Holloway, 262 N.C. 258, 136 S.E. 2d 559; Blake v. Mallard, 262 N.C. 62, 136 S.E. 2d 214.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 15, 263 N.C. 638, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starnes-v-mcmanus-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack