{
  "id": 8553043,
  "name": "CARL O. STANCIL v. WILSON EARL BLACKMON and LYNWOOD EARL STANLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stancil v. Blackmon",
  "decision_date": "1970-06-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 707SC217",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "502",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 499"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 S.E. 2d 521",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559321
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 462,
    "char_count": 8812,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.617,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.031324996443159e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4242986753281755
    },
    "sha256": "8f7d00800eb1aa28601ae141f2ff05e1f0d544e53bb3b6ef7ab4f70a164249b9",
    "simhash": "1:1728fb101242d219",
    "word_count": 1580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Graham, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARL O. STANCIL v. WILSON EARL BLACKMON and LYNWOOD EARL STANLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, J.\nThe only question to be determined on this appeal is whether the court erred in allowing defendants\u2019 motions for nonsuit. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to automobile accidents in some circumstances. Greene v. Nichols, 274 N.C. 18, 161 S.E. 2d 521 (1968). It was there stated that \u201cWhen a motor vehicle leaves the highway for no apparent cause, it is not for the court to imagine possible explanations. Prima facie, it may accept the normal and probable one of driver-negligence and leave it to the jury to determine the true cause after considering all the evidence \u2014 that of defendant as well as plaintiff.\u201d In view of this case, and in the absence of any explanation or findings in the record as to defendants\u2019 negligence, we assume the court granted the motions for nonsuit upon a finding that the plaintiff\u2019s own evidence established his contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nWhen considering a motion for nonsuit based on plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and nonsuit is proper only when the evidence establishes plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence as a matter of law and not when other reasonable inferences may be drawn or when there are material conflicts in the evidence. See 6 N.C. Index 2d, Negligence, \u00a7 35, and cases there cited.\nAfter reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we are of the opinion that such questions as whether plaintiff was speeding, whether plaintiff was following too closely and where the cars involved in the accident actually left the road, as they relate to a determination of whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent, should have been for the jury. We cannot say that contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff has been so clearly established by his evidence that no other conclusion can reasonably be drawn therefrom.\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and Graham, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Narron and Holdford by William H. Holdford for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Battle, Winslow, Scott and Wiley by Robert Spencer for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARL O. STANCIL v. WILSON EARL BLACKMON and LYNWOOD EARL STANLEY\nNo. 707SC217\n(Filed 24 June 1970)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 44\u2014 automobile leaving road without apparent cause \u2014 res ipsa loquitur\nWhen an automobile leaves the highway for no apparent cause, an inference of driver negligence arises which will take the case to the jury under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 35\u2014 nonsuit for contributory negligence\nNonsuit on the ground of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence is proper only when the evidence establishes plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence as a matter of law and not when other reasonable inferences may be drawn or when there are material conflicts in the evidence.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 73\u2014 error in allowing nonsuit for contributory negligence\nIn this action for injuries sustained when defendants\u2019 car left the road in front of plaintiff\u2019s car and allegedly caused a cloud of dust which so impaired plaintiff\u2019s vision that he could not see to maintain control of his ear and ran it into a ditch, questions of whether plaintiff was speeding, whether plaintiff was following too closely and where the cars involved in the accident left the road were for the jury, and the trial court erred in allowing defendants\u2019 motions for nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bundy, J., 27 October 1969 Session, Edgecombe County Superior Court.\nThis is an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff when his car ran off the road and into a ditch. Plaintiff alleges that his running off the road was caused by defendants\u2019 negligence in \u2022that the car driven by Blackmon ran off the road in front of him, causing a cloud of dust which so impaired plaintiff\u2019s vision that he could not see to maintain control of his car. The evidence in the case consists of the testimony of plaintiff and one witness. Plaintiff\u2019s testimony in substance, except where quoted, tends to show the accident occurred about 2:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning as he and his wife were returning from a drag strip near Benson, North Carolina. Both plaintiff and defendant had taken part in the races. Plaintiff had two beers on the day of the accident, one around 3:00 p.m. after he had gotten off work and the other around 10:30 p.m. at the drag strip. Plaintiff testified that these drinks had no effect on him at all. When plaintiff left the drag strip he drove about one-half mile down the exit road to its intersection with N.C. Highway 242, where he made a right turn towards Benson. When he stopped at the intersection, the car driven by Blackmon was two or three cars in front of him. He was familiar with this particular stretch of road and testified that he was running around 55 or 60 miles per hour, that his speedometer was not connected, and that he was about eight or nine car lengths behind the car being driven by defendant Blackmon. Plaintiff testified that it had been announced at the drag strip that the police were patrolling the roads and that the people in attendance should not exceed the speed limit when leaving. When testifying as to whether there was a sign with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, plaintiff stated \u201cI know the curve is down there but I don\u2019t know whether it had 35 on it because the patrolman that come to the hospital told me the speed limit down there was 55 to 60 miles per hour. I did not see the curve sign I don\u2019t reckon and I don\u2019t know if I have ever seen it because I ain\u2019t looked for .it.\u201d Plaintiff further stated \u201cThere were some cars in front of me and some cars behind me and I got down the road approximately three-quarters of a mile from' the stop sign (at the intersection) to the curve and there were some cars in front of me and a car got down there and it looked like it hit the shoulder of the road and skidded. I saw it happen because I was behind the car. It hit the-shoulder of the road and when the car skidded around the dust just boiled up \u2014 a whole pile of dust and all \u2014 and the car skidded back around in the road like it was going to turn clean around and come back and I didn\u2019t know whether it was going to hit me or me hit it or what so I' locked the brakes. That is, the car skidded around and turned near about around in the road and on the shoulder and I couldn\u2019t see for the dust so I put on brakes and pulled my car hard to the right' so that his car wouldn\u2019t hit me or I wouldn\u2019t hit him and his car skidded on down the road and went across the ditch and hit a man\u2019s light pole and when mine hit the bank it throwed me under the armrest and messed up my neck and arm and hut my leg.\u201d \u201cJust at the first of the curve is where he hit the shoulder of the road and then is when it skidded around sideways with him. He ran off the road just where the curve started, where the curve bends and all, he hit the shoulder there.\u201d \u201cAs to whether I am saying his car came to a stop on the highway without giving a signal, his car didn\u2019t completely come to a stop because the car was running fast enough where when it hit the shoulder it skidded around in the road and turned sideways and then is when he got it straightened out the other way and then is when it turned and went back down the other side of the road and went across the ditch and hit the light pole. The car didn\u2019t stop until it hit that light pole.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s only witness testified that he saw plaintiff drinking a beer around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. but that plaintiff was not under the influence of alcohol nor were his physical or mental faculties impaired. He stated that he \u201cdid not see the wreck happen. As I was coming down this same road I was behind them and I saw the two cars go into the curve. When I got to the curve, in the edge of the curve, the dust was everywhere and we just stopped . . .\u201d The witness testified that he was about one-quarter of a mile behind the cars, that he couldn\u2019t tell how far apart they were and that he did not think they were speeding. When asked on cross examination to identify a photograph (defendants\u2019 exhibit #3) the witness stated that it \u201cfairly and accurately represents the approach to this curve after you leave the crossroads and head toward the accident scene. . . . The sign located at the right side of the road has got a 35 mile limit on it. The sign tells how sharp the curve is, and has an arrow pointing, telling there is a curve, on the yellow sign. There is a small sign below that says 35 miles per hour.\u201d \u201cThis picture (defendants\u2019 exhibit #6) looks like the curve after where the accident happened, it\u2019s the same curve, I think, beyond the point of the accident.\u201d\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the court granted both' defendants\u2019 motions for nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.\nNarron and Holdford by William H. Holdford for plaintiff appellant.\nBattle, Winslow, Scott and Wiley by Robert Spencer for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 523,
  "last_page_order": 526
}
