{ "id": 8552586, "name": "HOBERT E. PICKLESIMER v. SAM HENRY ROBBINS", "name_abbreviation": "Picklesimer v. Robbins", "decision_date": "1973-08-29", "docket_number": "No. 7227DC723", "first_page": "280", "last_page": "286", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "19 N.C. App. 280" } ], "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": "85 S.E. 2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611815 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0432-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 623, "char_count": 15851, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2059432808630928 }, "sha256": "ee9ea106a1c4172ee4bc0d5d65ba1e4366e27de4434e03f1958366dac6b06fb5", "simhash": "1:bba45151d4bce243", "word_count": 2915 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Morris concur." ], "parties": [ "HOBERT E. PICKLESIMER v. SAM HENRY ROBBINS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s Appeal\nViewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and giving him the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn therefrom, it is our opinion that the evidence was sufficient to support, but certainly not to compel, a jury finding that the collision was proximately caused by defendant\u2019s negligence. The evidence would warrant the jury in finding the following: Defendant had a clear view of the bridge and of plaintiff\u2019s car, which was already on the bridge, at least by the time he came around the curve. At that time, while defendant was still 75 or 80 feet from the end of the bridge, he observed, or in the exercise of due care should have observed, plaintiff\u2019s car' sliding slowly into the right-hand side of the bridge. Even though defendant might not have been able to see the ice on the bridge until he had approached somewhat nearer, the sight of plaintiff\u2019s skidding car was sufficient to put him on notice of some unusual and dangerous condition on the bridge. Despite this notice he delayed applying his brakes until he reached the bridge itself. He testified: \u201cI was at the edge of the bridge when I hit the brakes.\u201d From the foregoing the jury might legitimately find that defendant failed to exercise that care and alertness which a reasonably prudent person would- have exercised under the circumstances to slow or halt his vehicle before it reached the- bridge, and that had he done so he could have avoided striking plaintiff\u2019s car. It is, of course, entirely possible that a jury hearing all of the evidence would determine that defendant did exercise due care, both in observing what was before him and in taking prompt action to avoid the collision, and that the collision resu\u2019ted from conditions over which he had no control and which in the exercise of due care he could not have reasonably foreseen. We hold, however, that the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence was one for the jury to determine and that it was error to direct a verdict for defendant on that issue. We further hold that the directed verdict for defendant cannot be sustained on the second ground stated in defendant\u2019s motion, i.e., that the evidence established plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence as a matter of law; as hereinafter noted in our analysis of defendant\u2019s appeal, not only does the evidence fail to establish plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence as a matter of law, but in our opinion it was insufficient even to warrant submission to the jury of an issue as to plaintiff\u2019s negligence.\nDefendant\u2019s Appeal\nViewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant we find the evidence insufficient to support a jury finding that the collision was proximately caused by any negligence on the part of the driver of plaintiff\u2019s car. All of the evidence is to the effect that she approached the bridge at a moderate speed. She observed the ice on the bridge in time to stop before driving upon it, thus demonstrating that she was both maintaining a careful lookout and keeping her car under control. She started up again, driving very slowly. Other cars were on the bridge and, so far as the evidence discloses, were apparently able to proceed safely despite the ice. Her entrance upon the bridge under these circumstances in our opinion would not warrant a finding of negligence on her part. Because the cars in front of her stopped to allow oncoming traffic to clear before turning left into the exit ramp at the far end of the bridge, she was also required to stop. In doing so, her car slid into the curb on the right side of the bridge. \u201cThe mere skidding of a motor vehicle does not imply negligence,\u201d Coach Co. v. Burrell, 241 N.C. 432, 85 S.E. 2d 688, and the skidding of plaintiff\u2019s car under the circumstances here disclosed does not, in our opinion, imply any negligence on the part of its driver. After her car had slid to a stop against the curb on the right-hand side of the bridge, all of the evidence shows she took prompt action to move it, but that before she could do so it was struck by defendant\u2019s car.\nThe result is:\nOn plaintiff\u2019s appeal the judgment allowing defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict is reversed and the case is remanded for a\nNew trial.\nOn defendant\u2019s appeal the judgment allowing plaintiff\u2019s motion for a directed verdict and dismissing defendant\u2019s counterclaim is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Harris & Bumgardner by Don H. Bumgardner; and Hedrick, MeKnight, Parham, Helms, Warley & Jolly by Richard Feerick for plaintiff.", "Carpenter, Golding, Crews & Meekins by James P. Crews for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HOBERT E. PICKLESIMER v. SAM HENRY ROBBINS\nNo. 7227DC723\n(Filed 29 August 1973)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 56 \u2014 striking car stopped on ice-covered bridge \u2014 negligence\nIn this action arising from a collision on an ice-covered bridge between two cars traveling in the same direction, plaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support, but not to compel, a jury finding that the collision was proximately caused by defendant\u2019s negligence where it tended to show that defendant had a clear view of the bridge and plaintiff\u2019s car, which was already on the bridge, when he came around a curve 75 or 80 feet from the bridge, that he observed or should have observed plaintiff\u2019s car sliding slowly into the right-hand side of the bridge but that defendant delayed applying his brakes until he reached the bridge itself, and that defendant\u2019s car skidded across the ice on the bridge and struck plaintiff\u2019s car.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 75 \u2014 sliding into curb on ice-covered bridge \u2014 contributory negligence\nIn this action arising from a collision on an ice-covered bridge between two cars traveling in the same direction, the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding of negligence on the part of the driver of plaintiff\u2019s car where all the evidence was to the effect that plaintiff\u2019s driver approached the bridge at a moderate speed, that she observed ice on the bridge and stopped before driving upon it, that she then drove very slowly upon the bridge, that other cars were on the bridge and were able to proceed safely despite the ice, that plaintiff\u2019s driver was required to stop because cars in front of her stopped to allow oncoming traffic to clear before turning onto an exit ramp at the far end of the bridge, that in doing so her car slid into the curb on the right side of the bridge and that she took prompt action to move it but was struck by defendant\u2019s car before she could do so.\nAppeals by plaintiff and defendant from Mull, District Judge, 30 May 1972 Session of District Court held in Gaston County.\nThis civil action arises from a two-car collision which occurred on an ice-covered bridge on the morning of 8 January 1971. Each party alleged that the collision resulted from the negligence of the other, and each seeks to recover of the other property damages for injuries to his vehicle. Plaintiff\u2019s car was being driven by his daughter as his agent under the family-purpose doctrine. Defendant was driving his own car. The collision occurred on the bridge which carries Edgewood Road (RP-1307) over Interstate 85 at a point about two miles south of Bessemer City, N. C. At that point Edgewood Road is a two-lane paved road which runs in a generally north-south direction. The bridge is 75 to 80 feet long and crosses over all four lanes and the median of 1-85. The speed limit on Edgewood Road was 55 miles per hour. Both cars were proceeding south on Edgewood Road, defendant\u2019s car being the following vehicle. Approaching the bridge proceeding south on Edgewood Road, there is an exit ramp on the right which leads down onto 1-85. After crossing the bridge to its south end, there is a similar exit on the left.\nAt the trial before judge and jury plaintiff alone introduced evidence. Plaintiff\u2019s daughter testified in substance as follows: She was 23 years old and lived in Bessemer City. About 8:00 a.m. on 8 January 1971 she drove her father\u2019s car south on Edgewood Road, headed to work in Gastonia. The sky was cloudy and overcast and it had been raining, but there was no ice on the road. She could see ice in puddles where water had been standing on the side of the road. As she approached the bridge she could see it was iced over, so she came to a stop at the edge of the bridge and then \u201cstarted up real slow again.\u201d There were two Volkswagens in front of her, which had stopped to let oncoming traffic go by before making a left turn into the exit ramp which leads down into 1-85 on the other side of the bridge. To keep from hitting the Volkswagens, she had to stop on the bridge. As she started to stop, the right front wheel of her car bumped the rail on the bridge, her car turned to the right, slid over, and stopped. She was ready to move off again when defendant\u2019s car struck hers.\nOn direct examination plaintiff\u2019s daughter further testified:\n\u201cEdgewood Road is straight immediately prior to the time you get to the bridge. Well, you can see the bridge\u2014 there\u2019s a curve you come out of, and you can see it from there; maybe 75 or 80 feet away from there when you can see the bridge. Comparing the distance to the bridge and the distance from the bridge to the curve, I would say the two distances are the same length. I was at the first exit place, about 25 feet when I first saw the ice on the bridge, between the bridge and the curve. I was going about 15 or 20 miles an hour when I first saw the ice on the bridge. I had been going about the same speed as I rounded the curve. After I saw ice on the bridge, my car came to a stop before I got onto the bridge. The bridge looked frosty looking and shiny in spots. I was about two-thirds across the bridge when my automobile came to a stop against the side of the bridge. I would say I was approximately 20 feet from the end of the bridge to where I had stopped. I saw Mr. Robbins\u2019 car when I started sliding. I looked up to the right to see if there was a car near enough to hit me. ... I don\u2019t think that Mr. Robbins\u2019 car was on the bridge. I was going about five miles an hour when I hit the side of the bridge. The right tire of my car hit the bridge. No other part of the car struck the bridge. . . . When the front wheel hit the bridge, my car was in neutral when it came to a stop. I put it back in drive and started turning my wheels to move. Mr. Robbins\u2019 car hit my car before my car moved. In my opinion it was just a few seconds that I was motionless on the bridge before my car was struck. . . . My car was at about a 50 degree angle on the bridge. The front of my car pointed towards the bridge, not exactly this way, just my right front fender partways toward the bridge. I was he\u00e1ded south and that was the same direction I was in. My right door and then the front fender and axle was struck by Mr. Robbins\u2019 car. After the impact my car slid off the bridge and down on the right side, down on the grass. Mr. Robbins\u2019 car took my position on the bridge, but a little more straight. At the time I came to a stop the first time after I struck the curb of the bridge, I was still on my side of the road in relation to the center line of the bridge.\u201d\nOn cross-examination she testified:\n\u201cAs I drove down Edgewood Road, I didn\u2019t see any ice on the road. I didn\u2019t have any trouble driving. As I approached the bridge, I came around \u25a0 a curve and was going 25 or 30. When you come out of the curve, you are 75 feet from the bridge. That\u2019s when you first see the bridge. You can see through the bridge \u2014 all the way through. And I was going about twenty-five or thirty at this point. And then I brought my car to a stop. I did not brake hard to come to a stop \u2014 it was normal braking and I got stopped. And that\u2019s because I saw the bridge had ice on it. It was frosty. You could see the ice on the bridge \u2014actually s\u00e9e sheets of it. After I saw sheets \u00f3f ice on the bridge, I went ahead and drove across' it. There were vehic\u00ed\u00e9s ahead of mine \u2014 and I had to hit niy brakes \u2014 and the right front tire of my car hit the bridge. My car didn\u2019t spin out of control. It just slid over that way,- and the tire hit the rail, but my car slid out of control. . . .\n\u201cI hit the bridge \u2014 but not very hard. It would be easy to knock the car into neutral. ... I traveled maybe halfway across the bridge before I hit the brakes. I slid about maybe ten feet. That\u2019s until I hit the bridge, and that stopped me. Then the next thing was when Rev. Robbins\u2019 car hit my car. And I was still at a stop. And I hadn\u2019t been able to get started yet.\n\u201cI guess the two Volkswagens I saw made their turn and left. They did not stop. They were not involved in any way in this collision. When my car struck the bridge, the curb was about eight to ten inches high.\u201d\nDefendant, who was called and examined by the plaintiff as an adverse witness, testified in substance as follows: He was going home that morning, having gotten off from work a few minutes after seven o\u2019clock. It is 60 or 65 feet between the edge of the bridge and the end of the curve as you come down Edgewood Road. You can\u2019t see across the bridge from the curve; you have to straighten out before you can see across the bridge. When he first observed plaintiff\u2019s car, it was already on the bridge and was skidding into the right-hand side of the bridge a little over halfway across. He was going about forty-five when he came out of the curve. He applied his brakes before he got to the bridge and just as he touched the end of the bridge. He did not see any ice on the road or on the side of the road that day and didn\u2019t see any ice on the bridge before he entered the bridge. He did not know how fast he was going when he entered the bridge or at the moment of impact. It is downgrade, and it seemed when he applied his brakes downhill he got faster. He further testified:\n\u201cWhen I first saw the vehicle driven by Miss Pickle-simer that is what I focused my attention on. My reaction at that time was to stop. I was at the edge of the bridge when I hit the brakes. The car skidded. I was aware then there was ice on the bridge, and I skidded across the bridge to where her car was at, and I hit her because she was absolutely across-ways the road.\n\u201cMy car hit her directly in the right side of her car. I touched no bumper at all because the end of her car was pointed directly facing the bridge railing, and the two-lane road and the width of the car was blocking the road. I couldn\u2019t stop due to the ice, and I hit her. I had applied my brakes all the way across the bridge. When I got on the bridge, I locked my car down. We pushed my car off the bridge, it was so slick \u2014 just slid it off.\u201d\nThe highway patrolman who investigated the collision testified that the road was wet and there was some ice occasionally along the side of the road; the bridge was extremely slick with ice when he observed it, but he could not see the ice on the bridge until he walked out on it; Miss Picklesimer told him at the scene that the car in front of her was making a left turn, that she started to slow her vehicle down, and that it turned sideways with her and hit the right side of the bridge; defendant told him he was following the vehicle in front of him and that \u201cshe went up on the bridge and her vehicle turned sideways and he tried to stop to keep from hitting her, and was unable to stop.\u201d\nAt the close of the evidence each party moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50 (a), each motion being made on the grounds that the evidence failed to disclose actionable negligence on the part of the respective movants and on the further grounds that the. evidence disclosed, as a matter of law, contributory negligence on the part of his opponent. Both motions were allowed, and judgment was entered dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim for relief and dismissing defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Both parties appealed.\nHarris & Bumgardner by Don H. Bumgardner; and Hedrick, MeKnight, Parham, Helms, Warley & Jolly by Richard Feerick for plaintiff.\nCarpenter, Golding, Crews & Meekins by James P. Crews for defendant." }, "file_name": "0280-01", "first_page_order": 304, "last_page_order": 310 }