{ "id": 8526345, "name": "JOSEPH DANIEL GAY and MARILYNN F. GAY v. REESE B. WALTER", "name_abbreviation": "Gay v. Walter", "decision_date": "1982-09-21", "docket_number": "No. 818SC126", "first_page": "813", "last_page": "815", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "58 N.C. App. 813" } ], "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": "283 S.E. 2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "58 N.C. App. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525012 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0360-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 250, "char_count": 4172, "ocr_confidence": 0.786, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0816683688967381e-07, "percentile": 0.562657514009504 }, "sha256": "a4ba79afebde9fbd23e7d662dc27200351c04d04768cfc3d0823ef69093f8c80", "simhash": "1:31a7d409f63581d0", "word_count": 685 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:52.636886+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOSEPH DANIEL GAY and MARILYNN F. GAY v. REESE B. WALTER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn their petition to rehear, plaintiffs contend that we erred in finding no error in the trial court\u2019s jury instructions on the application to G.S. 20453(b) to the facts of this case. We agree with plaintiffs\u2019 argument and award a new trial. The evidence, as summarized in our previous opinion, showed that the collision between plaintiffs\u2019 and defendant\u2019s automobiles occurred on a two-lane street in Kinston, near an intersection. Both cars were going in the same direction. Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence tended to show that the driver of plaintiffs\u2019 car was approaching the intersection in the right-hand lane, intending to turn left at the intersection. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that as defendant approached the intersection, plaintiffs\u2019 car, which was parked at the curb in the right lane, suddenly turned left in front of defendant and that defendant could not avoid colliding with plaintiffs\u2019 car. The sole issue we now address is whether under this evidence, an instruction on the requirements of G.S. 20453(b) is appropriate.\nWhile subsection (a) of the Statute speaks in terms describing a portion of a roadway: \u201cright-hand curb or edge\u201d, Subsection (b) speaks in terms of the \u201cleft-hand lane\u201d. The logical driver might expect another driver preparing to turn left at an intersection on a two-lane street to approach the intersection in the portion of the roadway nearest the center line on the left, but this is not what the Statute says. The Statute as now worded, and as it apparently has been since 1955, makes no distinction between two-lane or more than two-lane roadways.\nIt was error for the trial court to give an instruction on the requirements of G.S. 20453(b) in this case. For this error there must be a new trial. In all other respects, our previous opinion is affirmed.\nNew trial.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge WHICHARD concur.\n. G.S. \u00a7 20-153. Turning at intersections. \u2014(a) Right Turns. \u2014Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.\n(b) Left Turns. \u2014The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "White, Allen, Hooten, Hodges & Hines, P.A., by John M. Martin, for plaintiff-appellants.", "Jeffress, Morris, Rochelle & Duke, P.A., by Thomas H. Morris, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOSEPH DANIEL GAY and MARILYNN F. GAY v. REESE B. WALTER\nNo. 818SC126\n(Filed 21 September 1982)\nAutomobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 88.5\u2014 instruction on violation of left turn statute improper\nIn an action arising from an automobile accident in which defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that as defendant approached the intersection, plaintiffs car, which was parked at the curb in the right lane, suddenly turned left in front of defendant, and plaintiffs evidence tended to show that the driver of plaintiffs car was approaching the intersection in the right-hand lane, intending to turn left at the intersection, it was error for the trial court to instruct on G.S. \u00a7 20-153(b), the statute dealing with left turns at intersections.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Llewellyn, Judge. Judgment entered 18 September 1980 in Superior Court, LENOIR County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 September 1981. Reheard 14 September 1982.\nPlaintiffs appealed from judgment entered on a jury verdict of contributory negligence in their action to recover for property damage and personal injuries caused by a collision between plaintiffs\u2019 and defendant\u2019s automobiles at a street intersection in the city of Kinston.\nIn our initial opinion, filed 3 November 1981 and reported at 58 N.C. App. 360, 283 S.E. 2d 797 (1981), we found no error in the trial. We allowed plaintiffs\u2019 petition to rehear.\nWhite, Allen, Hooten, Hodges & Hines, P.A., by John M. Martin, for plaintiff-appellants.\nJeffress, Morris, Rochelle & Duke, P.A., by Thomas H. Morris, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0813-01", "first_page_order": 845, "last_page_order": 847 }