{ "id": 8547581, "name": "CALVIN CARLYLE CARR v. OLIVER WAYNE SCOTT and SCOTT AND JONES, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Carr v. Scott", "decision_date": "1977-09-21", "docket_number": "No. 764SC972", "first_page": "154", "last_page": "157", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 154" } ], "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": "135 S.E. 29", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N.C. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621994 ], "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "327" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550717 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564065 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 N.C. App. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554391 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/10/0470-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 437, "char_count": 6708, "ocr_confidence": 0.825, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20584192360249576 }, "sha256": "3e2beb57c39cad214289b834f2e8aa9a483e56e72746f3e240cb55551214c0ae", "simhash": "1:afe76c8c018d73c2", "word_count": 1133 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge BROCK and Judge MORRIS concur." ], "parties": [ "CALVIN CARLYLE CARR v. OLIVER WAYNE SCOTT and SCOTT AND JONES, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns as error the trial court\u2019s allowance of defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict. We think the motion was properly allowed on the ground of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nIn Bledsoe v. Gaddy, 10 N.C. App. 470, 472, 179 S.E. 2d 167, 169 (1971), the test for determining whether a directed verdict should be allowed on the basis of contributory negligence is stated:\n\u201cA directed verdict on the ground of contributory negligence will be allowed only when plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, so clearly establishes contributory negligence that no other reasonable inference or conclusion can be drawn therefrom. Galloway v. Hartman, 271 N.C. 372, 156 S.E. 2d 727 (1967); Anderson v. Mann, 9 N.C. App. 397, 176 S.E. 2d 365 (1970).\u201d\n\u201cBefore attempting to pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction on the highway in front of him, a driver must exercise due care to see that he can pass in safety ....\u201d 2 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d, Automobiles \u00a7 16.3, p. 83. \u201cA party may not recover for injuries resulting from a hazard which he helps to create. He is con-tributorily negligent if he knows of a dangerous condition and voluntarily goes into the place of the danger.\u201d 6 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 2d, Negligence \u00a7 13, p. 35.\nIn the case at hand we think plaintiff failed to exercise due care in the operation of his truck before and during his passing maneuver, and that his conduct was a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff\u2019s testimony tended to show that although he saw that defendants\u2019 truck was straddling the center line, and that the protruding angle irons created a dangerous condition, he was determined to pass the truck even if he had to drive on the median to do so.\nIn Dreher v. Divine, 192 N.C. 325, 327, 135 S.E. 29, 30 (1926), in an opinion by Stacy, C.J., we find:\n\u201cOne who operates an automobile should have it under control and if the driver of a front car has no knowledge of an approaching vehicle from the rear, and apparently does not hear its approach, the driver of the rear or trailing vehicle should reduce his speed and stop, if necessary, to avoid a collision or an injury. He cannot proceed regardless of the fact that the driver of the front vehicle does not turn to the right of the road, unless there be ample room to pass in safety without it.\u201d\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge BROCK and Judge MORRIS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "White, Allen, Hooten and Hines, P.A., by Thomas J. White III, for defendant appellees.", "Graham A. Phillips, Jr., for plaintiff appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CALVIN CARLYLE CARR v. OLIVER WAYNE SCOTT and SCOTT AND JONES, INC.\nNo. 764SC972\n(Filed 21 September 1977)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 77.1 \u2014 passing vehicle traveling in same direction \u2014 contributory negligence as a matter of law\nIn an action to recover damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for directed verdict where the evidence showed that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law in that, although he saw defendants\u2019 truck straddling the center line and saw protruding angle irons which created a dangerous condition, he still attempted to pass the truck, even though he had to drive on the median to do so.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 18 September 1976 in Superior Court, DUPLIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 August 1977.\nIn this action plaintiff seeks damages from defendants for alleged injury to person and damage to property arising out of a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the individual defendant who was driving a truck belonging to the corporate defendant.\nIn his complaint plaintiff alleged facts substantially as set forth in his evidence hereinafter summarized. He alleged that defendant driver was negligent in that he failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles using the highway, that he failed to attach a red flag or other warning device on the iron rods being transported, that he unlawfully straddled the center line, that he failed to give proper signals, and that he operated his vehicle in a careless and reckless manner without due regard for other persons.\nDefendants filed answer denying any negligence on their part and alleging that the acts of defendant driver were not the proximate cause of the accident. They further alleged that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in that he failed to maintain a proper lookout, failed to keep his vehicle under control, drove at an excessive speed, failed tp reduce his speed while overtaking defendants\u2019 vehicle, and failed to use due care in passing defendants\u2019 vehicle.\nPlaintiff presented evidence in the form of his testimony tending to show: On 27 February 1974 he was driving his .two-axle truck \u201cloaded to capacity with salad greens\u201d in a northerly direction on four-lane Highway 117. Defendant driver drove the corporate defendant\u2019s two-axle truck onto Highway 117 and proceeded ahead of plaintiff in a northerly direction. Loaded on defendants\u2019 truck were four pieces of angle iron protruding 12 to 15 feet from the back of the truck body. Plaintiff was traveling about 40 m.p.h., defendant driver was traveling about 15 m.p.h., and both were in the right-hand lane. Plaintiff gave a turn signal with the intention of getting in the left lane and passing defendants\u2019 truck; he pulled into the left lane when he was about 150 or 175 feet behind defendants\u2019 truck. At that time, without any turn signal having been given, defendants\u2019 truck suddenly veered to the left and began straddling the center line. Plaintiff did not know what defendant driver was going to do but continued to gain on defendants\u2019 truck \u201cuntil I got so near those angle irons until I dared not go any further\u201d. Plaintiff then decided to pass defendants\u2019 truck on the left even though the truck was still straddling the center line. At that time plaintiff was traveling 20 or 25 m.p.h. and was going a little faster than defendant driver. Thereupon, as plaintiff got within four or five feet of the angle irons, defendant driver suddenly turned to the right. The sudden right turn caused the angle irons to swing into the left lane and plaintiff had to drive onto the median on his left in order to avoid hitting the angle irons. The median was graded and plaintiff\u2019s truck overturned, causing the injuries and damage complained of. Defendants did not have a red flag on the end of the angle irons and plaintiff did not remember sounding his horn as he attempted to pass defendants\u2019 truck.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict was granted. Plaintiff appealed.\nWhite, Allen, Hooten and Hines, P.A., by Thomas J. White III, for defendant appellees.\nGraham A. Phillips, Jr., for plaintiff appellant." }, "file_name": "0154-01", "first_page_order": 182, "last_page_order": 185 }