Page 359 |
Previous | 359 of 842 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1972 335
White v. Reilly
The defendant's evidence was contrary to that offered by
the plaintiff. Defendant testified that he had three passengers
in his car and that, immediately prior to the accident, he had
stopped for a red light at the intersection. He further related
that when the traffic signal changed to green for his lane of
travel, he proceeded to make a left turn, looking both ways and
turning on his left turn indicator; that there was no traffic in
the northbound lane of Hillsborough ; that his vehicle completed
its left turn when plaintiff's car suddenly backed out of a park-ing
space and into his lane of travel; and that he attempted
to brake his car to avoid the collision but there was not time.
As mentioned above, defendant contends that plaintiff's
evidence showed that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as
a matter of law in backing out of the parking space. The thrust
of defendant's argument is that plaintiff owed the duty to yield
the right-of-way to defendant. The cases defendant relies upon,
Warren v. Lewis, 273 N.C. 457, 160 S.E. 2d 305 ; Gamer v. Pitt-man,
237 N.C. 328, 75 S.E. 2d 111, are factually distinguishable
and are not controlling in the case presently before us. Both of
these cases involved vehicles entering public highways from
private roads and failure to yield the right-of-way to the
approaching motorists on the highway. In the case before us,
the plaintiff's car was parked on a public highway and the
defendant's theory of principles of yielding the right-of-way
[statutory standard in G.S. 20-156(a)] while entering the
highway from a private drive do not apply.
11, 21 The plaintiff's evidence, when considered in the light
most favorable to him, justifies a jury finding that plaintiff
maintained a proper lookout prior to starting his backing
maneuver and during the backing maneuver. Plaintiff did not
observe any vehicles proceeding into the northbound lane of
travel on Hilllsborough Street during his backing maneuver.
In fact, plaintiff's evidence tends to show that his automobile
had stopped its backing maneuver and was preparing to pro-ceed
forward when defendant's vehicle entered the intersee-tion.
In our opinion the trial judge was correct in denying
defendant's motions for a directed verdict and a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. The discrepancies and contradic-tions
in the evidence offered by both parties were for the jury
to resolve.
[3] The defendant also assigns as error the trial judge's
refusal to strike plaintiff's answers concerning opinion testi-
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.015, Spring Session 1972] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 15, Spring Session 1972. Cited as 15 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_015.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 359 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1972 335 White v. Reilly The defendant's evidence was contrary to that offered by the plaintiff. Defendant testified that he had three passengers in his car and that, immediately prior to the accident, he had stopped for a red light at the intersection. He further related that when the traffic signal changed to green for his lane of travel, he proceeded to make a left turn, looking both ways and turning on his left turn indicator; that there was no traffic in the northbound lane of Hillsborough ; that his vehicle completed its left turn when plaintiff's car suddenly backed out of a park-ing space and into his lane of travel; and that he attempted to brake his car to avoid the collision but there was not time. As mentioned above, defendant contends that plaintiff's evidence showed that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law in backing out of the parking space. The thrust of defendant's argument is that plaintiff owed the duty to yield the right-of-way to defendant. The cases defendant relies upon, Warren v. Lewis, 273 N.C. 457, 160 S.E. 2d 305 ; Gamer v. Pitt-man, 237 N.C. 328, 75 S.E. 2d 111, are factually distinguishable and are not controlling in the case presently before us. Both of these cases involved vehicles entering public highways from private roads and failure to yield the right-of-way to the approaching motorists on the highway. In the case before us, the plaintiff's car was parked on a public highway and the defendant's theory of principles of yielding the right-of-way [statutory standard in G.S. 20-156(a)] while entering the highway from a private drive do not apply. 11, 21 The plaintiff's evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to him, justifies a jury finding that plaintiff maintained a proper lookout prior to starting his backing maneuver and during the backing maneuver. Plaintiff did not observe any vehicles proceeding into the northbound lane of travel on Hilllsborough Street during his backing maneuver. In fact, plaintiff's evidence tends to show that his automobile had stopped its backing maneuver and was preparing to pro-ceed forward when defendant's vehicle entered the intersee-tion. In our opinion the trial judge was correct in denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The discrepancies and contradic-tions in the evidence offered by both parties were for the jury to resolve. [3] The defendant also assigns as error the trial judge's refusal to strike plaintiff's answers concerning opinion testi- |
