{
  "id": 8527860,
  "name": "FRED B. DELAPPE, Plaintiff v. THOMAS H. CRAIG, SR. and NEWTON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Delappe v. Craig",
  "decision_date": "1992-10-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 9118DC878",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "620",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. App. 618"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 S.E.2d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626984
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E.2d 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572574
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S.E.2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "333"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630446
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E.2d 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "336"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606421
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "141"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E.2d 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558783
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0363-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 354,
    "char_count": 5651,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.205596156378229
    },
    "sha256": "4f5d8de73a22f7306b5659e68030d0ea52f6ffc315a801ef163d0dae56a4dd9b",
    "simhash": "1:06a28bedb16f5cc6",
    "word_count": 945
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:31.872261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Lewis and Wynn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FRED B. DELAPPE, Plaintiff v. THOMAS H. CRAIG, SR. and NEWTON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nThe sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff argues that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to him, is sufficient to raise a question for the jury as to whether defendants were negligent in any way in the operation of their tractor-trailer rig and whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the damages done to plaintiff\u2019s building. We agree.\nIn Bowen v. Gardner, 275 N.C. 363, 168 S.E.2d 47 (1969), the Supreme Court stated: ^\n\u2018It is a general rule of law that the operator of a motor vehicle must exercise ordinary care, that is, that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. And in the exercise of such duty it is incumbent upon the operator of a motor vehicle to keep same under control, and to keep a reasonably careful lookout, so as to avoid collision . . . .\u2019 It is the duty of a driver not merely to look but to keep a lookout in the direction of travel; \u2018and he is held to the duty of seeing what he ought to have seen.\u2019\nId. at 367, 168 S.E.2d at 51, quoting Adams v. Service Co., 237 N.C. 136, 141, 74 S.E.2d 332, 336, (1953), and Wall v. Bain, 222 N.C. 375, 379, 23 S.E.2d 330, 333 (1942). Whether the operator of a motor vehicle was keeping a reasonably careful lookout to avoid danger is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. Mims v. Dixon, 272 N.C. 256, 158 S.E.2d 91 (1967); Peeden v. Tait, 254 N.C. 489, 119 S.E.2d 450 (1961).\nIn the present case, the testimony of defendant driver clearly shows that on the day of the accident, he was aware of the presence of the telephone wire, he saw the wire and he proceeded to drive his tractor-trailer rig under the wire causing the trailer to collide with the wire and damage plaintiff\u2019s building. From this evidence, a jury could find that defendant driver did not \u201ckeep a reasonable] lookout so as to avoid collision\u201d with the wire in that after he saw the wire he did not take steps to insure that his vehicle could successfully clear the wire without incident. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury could infer defendants\u2019 negligence in the operation of the tractor-trailer rig. The trial court, therefore, erred in directing a verdict for defendants, and the judgment of the trial court must be reversed.\nReversed.\nJudges Lewis and Wynn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wyatt, Early, Harris, Wheeler & Hauser, by Thomas E. Terrell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Henson Henson Bayliss & Sue, by Gary K. Sue, and James H. Slaughter, for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRED B. DELAPPE, Plaintiff v. THOMAS H. CRAIG, SR. and NEWTON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Defendants\nNo. 9118DC878\n(Filed 6 October 1992)\nAutomobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 314 (NCI4th)\u2014 telephone wire seen by driver \u2014no attempt to avoid wire \u2014failure to keep reasonable lookout \u2014directed verdict for defendants improper\nThe trial court erred in directing verdict for defendants where the testimony of defendant driver clearly showed that, on the day of the accident, he was aware of the presence of a telephone wire, saw the wire, and proceeded to drive his tractor-trailer rig under the wire causing the trailer to collide with the wire and damage plaintiffs building, and a jury could find from this evidence that defendant driver did not keep a reasonable lookout so as'to avoid collision with the wire in that, after he saw the wire, he did not take steps to ensure that his vehicle could successfully clear the wire without incident.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7\u00a7 414, 762.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Morton (J. Bruce), Judge. Judgment entered 28 June 1991 in District Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 September 1992.\nThis is a civil action wherein plaintiff seeks damages for the negligence of defendants in the operation of a tractor-trailer rig. The evidence tends to show the following:\nPlaintiff is the owner of a building in High Point, North Carolina. On 12 May 1990, defendant Craig [hereinafter \u201cdefendant driver\u201d] delivered a load of veneer to one of plaintiffs tenants for his employer, defendant Newton Transportation Company, Inc. [hereinafter \u201cdefendant employer\u201d]. When defendant driver drove his tractor-trailer rig into plaintiff\u2019s parking lot, the trailer caught a telephone wire that crossed the parking lot, attached on one end to a telephone pole on the street in front of plaintiffs building and on the other end to a corner of plaintiffs building. As a result of defendants\u2019 trailer colliding with the telephone wire, a portion of plaintiff\u2019s wall and roof was \u201cpulled down.\u201d\nAt trial, defendant driver testified that he had made deliveries to plaintiffs building in the same tractor-trailer rig on seven previous occasions, and on each occasion, the telephone wire was present, but the trailer successfully cleared the wire. On the day of the accident, defendant-driver testified, \u201cI knew the wire was there. I seen the wire. But as far as anything being different about it, I mean, it didn\u2019t look different . . . .\u201d Defendant driver proceeded under the wire as he had done in the past and stopped his vehicle only when he heard the cinder blocks falling off the building. He testified that his trailer \u201ccaught\u201d the telephone wire \u201cjerking\u201d the blocks off plaintiff\u2019s building.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that plaintiff had not proven any actionable negligence. The trial judge granted defendants\u2019 motion and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed.\nWyatt, Early, Harris, Wheeler & Hauser, by Thomas E. Terrell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nHenson Henson Bayliss & Sue, by Gary K. Sue, and James H. Slaughter, for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 648
}