{ "id": 8551074, "name": "HELEN ROLAND PREVETTE v. HAROLD DEAN BULLIS", "name_abbreviation": "Prevette v. Bullis", "decision_date": "1971-10-20", "docket_number": "No. 7123SC499", "first_page": "552", "last_page": "555", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 N.C. App. 552" } ], "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": "163 S.E. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553722 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605581 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 N.C. App. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548120 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/5/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 369", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573415 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574136 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 P. 2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Cal. App. 2d 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1199511 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/1/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 P. 2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Wash. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.", "case_ids": [ 859424 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/173/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 A.L.R. 92", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 P. 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 Wash. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.", "case_ids": [ 821853 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/153/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S.E. 2d 181", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562255 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575842 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0609-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 450, "char_count": 6677, "ocr_confidence": 0.571, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0993630655098684e-07, "percentile": 0.7616133218577609 }, "sha256": "6afcfc4d0ab158ce39198a033daede3fd0d46f70b0eb2761eaa783944195b611", "simhash": "1:cbee70abeced9c98", "word_count": 1146 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Brock and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "HELEN ROLAND PREVETTE v. HAROLD DEAN BULLIS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThrough her first assignment of error plaintiff contends that the court erroneously charged the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency. The charge on sudden emergency related only to the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence. That issue was answered in plaintiff\u2019s favor. Consequently, error, if any, in portions of the charge pertinent only to that issue is harmless. Key v. Welding Supplies, 273 N.C. 609, 160 S.E. 2d 687; Wooten v. Cagle, 268 N.C. 366, 150 S.E. 2d 738.\nPlaintiff next contends that the fact she permitted her car to stall for lack of gasoline did not constitute evidence of negligence on her part. She therefore says it was error for the court to charge the jury with respect to this evidence and as to defendant\u2019s contentions relating thereto.\nIt is the duty of a motorist operating a motor vehicle on a public highway to exercise reasonable care to see that it is in reasonably good condition and properly equipped, so that it may not become a source of danger to its occupants or to other travelers. Scott v. Clark, 261 N.C. 102, 134 S.E. 2d 181; Huddy, The Law of Automobiles, Vol. 3-4, \u00a7 71, p. 127. A disabled vehicle stalled on the traveled portion of a public highway is a well recognized hazard to the motoring public. Certainly it cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff here was under no duty to anticipate and provide against the contingency that her car would stall for lack of gasoline and thereby become a dangerous obstruction to traffic. See: Keller v. Breneman, 153 Wash. 208, 279 P. 588, 67 A.L.R. 92; Chapin v. Stickel, 173 Wash. 174, 22 P. 2d 290; Casey v. Gritsch, 1 Cal. App. 2d 206, 36 P. 2d 696.\nWe hold that the court properly permitted the jury to consider the evidence that plaintiff permitted her car to run out of gasoline and stall on the highway in determining the issue of contributory negligence.\nIn her third assignment of error plaintiff questions the court\u2019s failure to charge on the essential elements of G.S. 20-161. That statute prohibits parking or leaving a vehicle standing, under certain specified circumstances, on the traveled portion of a highway.. It is applicable only to highways \u201coutside of a business or residence district.\u201d Here there was no evidence that the collision, which occurred inside the Town of Wilkesboro, occurred outside of a business or residential district. The trial judge therefore correctly did not apply any of the provisions of that statute to the facts of this case. This would seem to have inured to plaintiff\u2019s benefit because a violation of the statute is negligence per se, Hughes v. Vestal, 264 N.C. 500, 142 S.E. 2d 361, and defendant had pleaded plaintiff\u2019s violation of the statute as a bar to her claim. An appellant may not complain of a trial court\u2019s ruling which is favorable to him. Simpson v. Wood, 260 N.C. 157, 132 S.E. 2d 369; Midgett v. Midgett, 5 N.C. App. 74, 168 S.E. 2d 53.\nPlaintiff asserts that the court failed to explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51. A review of the charge in its entirety fails to disclose any prejudicial error in this respect. If a more thorough or more detailed charge was desired it was incumbent upon plaintiff to request it. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b) ; Woods v. Roadway Express, Inc., 223 N.C. 269, 25 S.E. 2d 856; Jackson v. Jones, 2 N.C. App. 441, 163 S.E. 2d 31.\nPlaintiff\u2019s final assignments of error are directed to the court\u2019s refusal to grant her motions for judgment N.O.V. and to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. These assignments of error are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GRAHAM, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brewer & Bryan by Joe O. Brewer and Moore & Rousseau by Larry S. Moore for plaintiff appellant.", "Hayes & Hayes by Kyle Hayes for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HELEN ROLAND PREVETTE v. HAROLD DEAN BULLIS\nNo. 7123SC499\n(Filed 20 October 1971)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 50\u2014 instructions \u2014 harmless error\nError in the charge on an issue answered in appellant\u2019s favor is harmless.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 10, 75\u2014 running out of gas \u2014 stopping on highway \u2014 evidence of negligence\nIt may be negligence for a plaintiff to permit her car to run out of gas and stall on the traveled portion of the highway, and such conduct is properly considered by the jury on the issue of contributory negligence.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 90 \u2014 instructions \u2014 failure to charge on parking statute was in appellant\u2019s favor\nAppellant was benefited, and therefore could not complain on appeal, when the trial court failed to charge on the statute which prohibited the leaving of a vehicle on the traveled portion of the highway, since a jury finding that the plaintiff had violated the statute would have constituted negligence per se. G.S. 20-161.\n4. Appeal and Error \u00a7 47\u2014 ruling in appellant\u2019s favor \u2014 review on appeal\nAn appellant may not complain of a trial court\u2019s ruling which is favorable to him.\n5. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 51 \u2014 instructions \u2014 request for more detailed charge\nIf a party desires a more thorough or more detailed charge, it is incumbent upon him to request it. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Exmn, Judge, 15 March 1971 Civil Session of Superior Court held in Wilkes County.\nPlaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained when her car was struck from the rear by defendant\u2019s car. Her evidence tended to show that at around 12:15 p.m. on 1 December 1968, she was driving west on Highway 421 in Wilkesboro when her car started sputtering. She pulled off the traveled portion of the highway where the car went completely dead. The gasoline gauge indicated the car was out of gasoline. Plaintiff had not looked at the gasoline gauge previously and had just driven past several service stations. The collision occurred while she was waiting in the car for her son to return with gasoline.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that immediately before the collision he was following another car in a westerly direction on Highway 421 at about 30 miles per hour. When the vehicles reached a point near plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, the car in front of defendant suddenly pulled out and around plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, revealing its presence as an obstruction in the highway to defendant for the first time. Defendant could not turn into the left lane because of approaching traffic. He tried to stop but slid into the rear of plaintiff\u2019s car, which, except for the right front wheel, was completely in the traveled portion of the lane for westbound traffic.\nIssues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the first two issues \u201cyes\u201d and from judgment entered upon the verdict plaintiff appealed.\nBrewer & Bryan by Joe O. Brewer and Moore & Rousseau by Larry S. Moore for plaintiff appellant.\nHayes & Hayes by Kyle Hayes for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0552-01", "first_page_order": 578, "last_page_order": 581 }