{ "id": 8554131, "name": "DANIEL W. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of JAMES DANIEL WILLIAMS, v. CALVIN COOLIDGE HALL and DuBOSE LUMBER CORPORATION", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Hall", "decision_date": "1968-07-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "508", "last_page": "512", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "1 N.C. App. 508" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571978 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572459 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618798 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625931 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564065 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625705 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562402 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0395-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 514, "char_count": 9906, "ocr_confidence": 0.563, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5257504782238967e-07, "percentile": 0.6701859838160449 }, "sha256": "e0255a4b2918424bec213e90e97de3c61278cebc90547040102b1918498c1716", "simhash": "1:bd87d7b46e28dd5a", "word_count": 1635 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Campbell and Morris, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "DANIEL W. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of JAMES DANIEL WILLIAMS, v. CALVIN COOLIDGE HALL and DuBOSE LUMBER CORPORATION." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Britt, J.\nTwo questions are presented for our determination: (1) Was the evidence offered by plaintiff sufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence against the defendants? (2) Did the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, show that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was contributorily negligent as a matter of law?\nIn their brief and argument on this appeal, defendants apparently have conceded, and we agree, that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of defendant Hall to take that issue to the jury. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the provisions of G.S. 20-161 (a), and the evidence was more than sufficient to support the allegation.\nDefendants contend, however, that their motion for nonsuit was properly allowed on the grounds that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and this contention is the principal question presented by this appeal.\nIn Bass v. McLamb, 268 N.C. 395, 150 S.E. 2d 856, in an opinion written by Branch, J., the following was said:\n\u201cWe recognize the well-established rule that \u2018A motion for judgment of nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence will be granted only when plaintiff\u2019s own evidence establishes the facts necessary to show contributory negligence so clearly that no other conclusion can be reasonably drawn therefrom.\u2019 Johnson v. Thompson, Inc., 250 N.C. 665, 110 S.E. 2d 306.\u201d\nIn Galloway v. Hartman, 271 N.C. 372, 156 S.E. 2d 727, we find the following:\n\u201cNonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence should be allowed only when plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, so clearly establishes the defense that no other reasonable inference or conclusion can be drawn therefrom. Waters v. Harris, 250 N.C. 701, 110 S.E. 2d 283; Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E. 2d 154. Further, nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence should be denied if diverse inferences upon the question are permissible from plaintiff\u2019s proof. Wooten v. Russell, 255 N.C. 699, 122 S.E. 2d 603.\u201d\nAt the trial of this action, evidence was introduced by plaintiff and the defendants, the motion for nonsuit being allowed at the close of all the evidence. Defendants stress the evidence of excessive speed on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate and contend that the judgment was justified primarily on the showing of excessive speed.\nIt is well established in this jurisdiction that upon motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff\u2019s evidence is taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to him, giving him the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues which may be reasonably deduced from the evidence, and defendant\u2019s evidence which tends to impeach or contradict plaintiff\u2019s evidence is not considered. It is elementary that discrepancies and contradictions even in plaintiff\u2019s evidence are matters for the jury and not the judge. Greene v. Meredith, 264 N.C. 178, 141 S.E. 2d 287.\nThe burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence is on the defendants. They contend that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was either exceeding the maximum speed limit or was driving faster than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions existing. Although there was elicited from plaintiff\u2019s witnesses evidence that would infer excessive speed, we are of the opinion that plaintiff\u2019s evidence did not show excessive speed or other negligence on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate sufficiently to constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nWe hold that upon the evidence presented by plaintiff in the trial of this action, he was entitled to have the issues answered by the jury. The judgment of the Superior Court is\nReversed.\nCampbell and Morris, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Britt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "D. K. Stewart and Bryan, Bryan & Johnson by Robert C. Bryan, Attorneys for plaintiff appellant.", "Holland & Poole by R. Maurice Holland, Butler & Butler by Edwin E. Butler, and Morgan & Jones by Robert B. Morgan, Attorneys for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DANIEL W. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of JAMES DANIEL WILLIAMS, v. CALVIN COOLIDGE HALL and DuBOSE LUMBER CORPORATION.\n(Filed 10 July 1968.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 26\u2014\nA motion for judgment of nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence will be granted only when plaintiff\u2019s own evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, so clearly establishes the facts necessary to show contributory negligence that no other conclusion can be reasonably ' drawn therefrom.\n2. Tidal \u00a7 21\u2014\nUpon motion to nonsuit, plaintiff\u2019s evidence is taken as true and considered in tlie light most favorable to Mm, giving Mm the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issue which may be reasonably deduced from the evidence, and defendant\u2019s evidence which tends to impeach or contradict plaintiff\u2019s evidence is not considered.\n3. Same\u2014 \u25a0\nDiscrepancies and contradictions even in plaintiff\u2019s evidence are matters for the jury and not the judge.\n4. Negligence \u00a7 26\u2014\nThe burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence is upon defendant.\n5. Automobiles \u00a7 76\u2014\nPlaintiff administrator\u2019s evidence tending to show that defendant\u2019s disabled tanker truck was standing in his intestate\u2019s lane of .travel at night without lights or flares, in violation of G.S. 20-161(a), that there was a slight drizzle-like rain at the time of the accident, that the intestate\u2019s vehicle collided into the rear of the truck, killing the intestate and his three companions, that the posted speed limit on the rural paved road was 55 miles per hour, and that the truck could not be seen at a distance of more than 50 to 80 feet away, is field insufficient to disclose contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate as a matter of law.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Canaday, J., February 1968 Civil Session of Harnett Superior Court.\nThis is a civil action instituted by plaintiff administrator against the defendants to recover for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate who was killed in a collision between a 1963 Chevrolet automobile operated by plaintiff\u2019s intestate and a 1958 Chevrolet tanker truck owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the individual defendant.\nIn his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on 8 August 1966, at around 9:15 p.m., his 22-year-old intestate was operating a 1963 Chevrolet in a southerly direction on rural paved road 1446 in Sampson County; that at said time and place, defendant Hall had stopped the corporate defendant\u2019s tanker truck on. the southbound lane of the pavement of said road and had left the truck parked on the highway with no lights or flares, in violation of G.S. 20-161 (a); that plaintiff\u2019s intestate ran .into said truck and was killed instantly;. that his death was proximately caused by the negligence of the defendants.\nIn their answer, defendants admit that the corporate defendant owned said truck, that defendant Hall was operating the same as the agent or servant of the corporate defendant, and that defendant Hall stopped the truck on a portion of the pavement of said public road. The answer further avers that the electrical system on the truck suddenly failed, that the driver was unable to remove the truck from the pavement onto the shoulder of the highway, that the truck contained approximately 1,000 gallons of fuel oil in its tank weighing some 8,000 pounds, and that the truck and its load weighed approximately 13,000 pounds. The answer also alleges that there were several five-inch or six-inch reflectors on the rear of the truck; that after it stopped, defendant Hall placed a two-cell flashlight on the rear of the truck, then left and went several hundred yards to a service station to obtain help. Defendants allege that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was contributorily negligent in many respects, including excessive speeding, not keeping a proper lookout, and not keeping his vehicle under proper control.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence most favorable to him tended to show: That around 9:00 p.m., plaintiff\u2019s intestate stopped at a service station approximately one mile from where the wreck took place; that he was accompanied by another man and two girls and purchased four soft drinks, after which he drove off in the direction of the site of the wreck; that intestate appeared to be normal at the time, and he drove off from the store in a normal manner. A witness at the store testified that he left the store about fifteen minutes after intestate left and that he passed by the wrecked vehicles. The investigating patrolman testified that rural paved road 1446 was a secondary road, paved with coarse asphalt, and was nineteen feet wide at the site of the wreck; that he arrived at the scene at about 9:45 p.m., at which time he found the oil truck sitting in the southbound traffic lane; that the Chevrolet convertible was sitting behind the tanker and plaintiff\u2019s intestate and his three companions were all dead; that there were no flares on the highway to the rear of the truck and no lights on the truck were burning. He further testified that there was a slight drizzle-like rain at the time of his investigation and that it was very dark at 9:00 that night; that the posted speed limit at the site was 55 miles per hour.\nAnother witness for plaintiff testified that he had occasion to pass the disabled truck about 9:00 p.m., before the wreck occurred; that he was driving south at about 30 miles per hour and had his lights on low beam; that it was drizzling rain; that there were no lights on or flares about the truck, and that he did not see the truck until he was about \u201c50 to 75 to 80 feet\u201d from it. He testified that when he was \u201cright on it\u201d he discovered two or three little reflectors.\nDefendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of involuntary nonsuit at the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s testimony was denied but was allowed at the conclusion of all the testimony. From judgment entered thereon, plaintiff appealed.\nD. K. Stewart and Bryan, Bryan & Johnson by Robert C. Bryan, Attorneys for plaintiff appellant.\nHolland & Poole by R. Maurice Holland, Butler & Butler by Edwin E. Butler, and Morgan & Jones by Robert B. Morgan, Attorneys for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0508-01", "first_page_order": 530, "last_page_order": 534 }