Stewart v. Yellow Cab Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Stewart v. Yellow Cab Co.

36 S.E.2d 256, 225 N.C. 654, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 12, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 36 S.E.2d 256 (Stewart v. Yellow Cab Co.) 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

Stewart v. Yellow Cab Co., 36 S.E.2d 256, 225 N.C. 654, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 405 (N.C. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Denny, J.

The ordinance of the City of Charlotte authorizing the erection and maintenance of the traffic signals at the intersection of North Tryon and Fifth Streets in said city, as authorized by G. S., 20-169, not having been introduced in evidence, in the trial below, the court instructed the jury not to consider the evidence as to the traffic lights except as to whether or not, under the definition of negligence, a reasonably prudent person, in the exercise of due care, would drive under a red light at the intersection of North Tryon and Fifth Streets. And the court further instructed the jury that in so far as this case was concerned, it was not negligence per se to enter the intersection on a red light, and that it was not a violation of any law to enter this intersection on a red light.

The court having withdrawn from the jury any consideration of the traffic signals as having any legal bearing on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant as they entered the intersection of the streets where the collision occurred, the defendant duly excepted to the failure of the court, in charging the jury, to state in a plain and concise manner the evidence given in the case as to the right of way as between the parties at the intersection of the streets in which the collision occurred, and to declare and explain the law arising thereunder, as provided by G. S., *656 1-180. We think the exception well taken, and must be sustained. The court inadvertently failed to state the evidence offered by the parties in support of their respective contentions, as to which motor vehicle first entered the intersection, and to declare and explain the law applicable thereto. The right of way rule is stated in the recent case of Cab Co. v. Sanders, 223 N. C., 626, 27 S. E. (2d), 631, and in the cases cited therein, and need not be restated here.

In view of the conclusion reached, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the remaining exceptions.

The defendant is entitled to a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

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

Denny, J.

The ordinance of the City of Charlotte authorizing the erection and maintenance of the traffic signals at the intersection of North Tryon and Fifth Streets in said city, as authorized by G. S., 20-169, not having been introduced in evidence, in the trial below, the court instructed the jury not to consider the evidence as to the traffic lights except as to whether or not, under the definition of negligence, a reasonably prudent person, in the exercise of due care, would drive under a red light at the intersection of North Tryon and Fifth Streets. And the court further instructed the jury that in so far as this case was concerned, it was not negligence per se to enter the intersection on a red light, and that it was not a violation of any law to enter this intersection on a red light.

The court having withdrawn from the jury any consideration of the traffic signals as having any legal bearing on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant as they entered the intersection of the streets where the collision occurred, the defendant duly excepted to the failure of the court, in charging the jury, to state in a plain and concise manner the evidence given in the case as to the right of way as between the parties at the intersection of the streets in which the collision occurred, and to declare and explain the law arising thereunder, as provided by G. S., *656 1-180. We think the exception well taken, and must be sustained. The court inadvertently failed to state the evidence offered by the parties in support of their respective contentions, as to which motor vehicle first entered the intersection, and to declare and explain the law applicable thereto. The right of way rule is stated in the recent case of Cab Co. v. Sanders, 223 N. C., 626, 27 S. E. (2d), 631, and in the cases cited therein, and need not be restated here.

In view of the conclusion reached, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the remaining exceptions.

The defendant is entitled to a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E.2d 256, 225 N.C. 654, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-yellow-cab-co-nc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack