#### CHARLIE McCLURE, JR. v. AMOS MUNGO

No. 7126SC382

(Filed 4 August 1971)

Automobiles § 59— automobile accident — insufficiency of evidence for jury

Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient for the jury in this action for damages sustained in an automobile accident which occurred when defendant, at the direction of a police officer, drove out of a parking lot on the east side of a four-lane street and collided with plaintiff’s . southbound vehicle.

*164Appeal by plaintiff from Snepp, Judge, 25 January 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.

This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff, Charlie McClure, Jr., to recover damages for injury to person and property allegedly resulting from an automobile collision occurring on 8 September 1967. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on 8 September 1967, at approximately 4:50 p.m., a collision occurred on North Graham Street near the First Union National Bank in the City of Charlotte, N. C., between the plaintiff’s automobile and an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. North Graham Street is a four-laned street with two lanes for southbound traffic and two lanes for northbound traffic. The bank is located on the eastern side of the street. The plaintiff was operating his automobile in the outside right-hand lane in a southerly direction. There was a line of traffic in the left-hand southbound lane. As the plaintiff neared the bank, traffic in the left-hand lane came to a stop, while the plaintiff proceeded in the right-hand lane passing the stopped cars.

E. J. Smith, a Charlotte Police Officer, was directing traffic out of the First Union National Bank parking lot. The officer, standing near the center line of the street, with no traffic going north on North Graham Street, stopped the southbound traffic by holding up his hand, and at the same time directed the defendant to enter the street from the bank parking lot and make his turn to proceed south. While making his turn, the defendant’s automobile collided with the automobile of the plaintiff.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was allowed. The plaintiff appealed.

John D. Warren for plaintiff appellant.

Sanders, Walker & London by James Walker and Richard L. Stanley for defendant appellee.

HEDRICK, Judge.

The plaintiff’s one assignment of error challenges the court’s ruling on the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to *165the plaintiff, it is our opinion that it is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.