{ "id": 8553884, "name": "FRED COLE t/a COLE'S RADIO & TV SERVICE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL; -and- ELSIE F. COLE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL", "name_abbreviation": "Cole v. Vogel", "decision_date": "1970-06-24", "docket_number": "No. 708DC48", "first_page": "577", "last_page": "579", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "8 N.C. App. 577" } ], "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": "46 S.E. 2d 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627647 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622442 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624264 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626989 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 S.E. 2d 62", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568417 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0447-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 345, "char_count": 4720, "ocr_confidence": 0.617, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20597706661662513 }, "sha256": "9a7e80d1b2667bc481f8edd6d74e2543035d0984ce833efc78a2dfd6dd52c013", "simhash": "1:3667e8785d360a56", "word_count": 825 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "ParkbR and Graham, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "FRED COLE t/a COLE\u2019S RADIO & TV SERVICE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL \u2014and\u2014 ELSIE F. COLE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mallaed, C.J.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 evidence, in substance, except where quoted, was: Fred Cole was on 16 March 1966 the owner and driver of a 1966 Mercury station wagon. At the time of the collision, Elsie F. Cole, his wife, was a passenger in the vehicle. The collision occurred about 10 miles south of Jacksonville, North Carolina, on Highway 17 at a \u201cT\u201d intersection. The male plaintiff testified:\n\u201cAs I approached this intersection I saw an automobile that was stopped and he had his left-hand turn signal on which led me to believe that he wanted to turn left. I later found out that this car was being operated by a man named Pierce. He had come to a complete stop. I was meeting the Pierce vehicle. Down the road about a city block I saw another car coming. It was following Mr. Pierce. HE WAS COMING AT A PRETTY GOOD CLIP OF SPEED.\nOBJECTION BY DEFENDANT OBJECTION SUSTAINED EXCEPTION NO. 1\u201d.\nPlaintiff later learned that the operator of the following vehicle was defendant Vogel. Defendant\u2019s automobile hit the back of the Pierce car and then continued down the road and hit the Cole car knocking it into a sign on the right side of the road.\nThe only assigned errors requiring discussion are the granting of the motion for nonsuit in each case. We think this was error.\nIn Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 450, 126 S.E. 2d 62, 65 (1962), Moore, J., speaking for a unanimous Court, said:\n\u201c 'Ordinarily the mere fact of a collision with a. vehicle ahead furnishes some evidence that the following motorist was negligent as to speed, was following too closely, or failed to keep a proper lookout.\u2019 Clark v. Scheld, 253 N.C. 732, 737, 117 S.E. 2d 838; Clontz v. Krimminger, 253 N.C. 252, 116 S.E. 2d 804; Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, 116 S.E. 2d 184. But the nature of the negligence, if any, depends upon the circumstances in each particular case. Beaman v. Duncan, 228 N.C. 600, 46 S.E. 2d 707.\u201d\nIn that case, plaintiff was proceeding southwardly following another car. The driver of that car gave a hand signal for a right turn for some 75 to 100 feet prior to turning. Plaintiff gave a mechanical right turn signal for about 75 feet, although she did not intend to turn, and came to a complete stop in her lane of traffic. She was not aware that defendant was following her. About the time the car in front of her cleared the highway, defendant\u2019s car ran into the rear of her car, causing only slight damage. Defendant\u2019s testimony on adverse examination, offered by plaintiff, was to the effect that he was following about four car lengths behind plaintiff; that both cars were traveling about 35 to 40 miles per hour; that when a passenger in defendant\u2019s vehicle cautioned him to \u201cWatch that car in front of you\u201d, he stepped on his brakes and skidded into plaintiff\u2019s bumper; that plaintiff told him the car in front did not give a signal and she had no time to give a signal. There, as here, there was no direct evidence that defendant was following too closely. Indeed the direct evidence is to the contrary. There, as here, there was no direct evidence of excessive speed. The Court there concluded that defendant\u2019s testimony permitted the inference that he was not keeping a proper lookout. We are of the opinion that the evidence here permits the same inference and the question of defendant\u2019s negligence should be for the jury.\nNew trial.\nParkbR and Graham, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mallaed, C.J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Turner and Harrison by Fred W. Harrison for plaintiff appellants.", "Lucas, Band, Rose, Meyer and Jones by David S. Orcutt for defendant- appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRED COLE t/a COLE\u2019S RADIO & TV SERVICE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL \u2014and\u2014 ELSIE F. COLE v. ROBERT JAMES VOGEL\nNo. 708DC48\n(Filed 24 June 1970)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 56\u2014 striking rear of stopped automobile \u2014 failure to keep proper lookout\nPlaintiffs\u2019 evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout, where it tends to show that defendant\u2019s automobile ran into the back of an automobile which had stopped in the road with its left turn signal on and then continued down the road and struck plaintiffs\u2019 oncoming vehicle.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Wooten, District Judge, 27 July 1969 Session of the District Court held in LeNOIR County.\nThis appeal arises from two actions which were consolidated for trial. The Fred Cole action is for property damage and the Elsie F. Cole action is for damages for personal injuries. The damages sought in each action allegedly resulted from the negligence of defendant Yogel in the operation of an automobile which was in collision with the Cole vehicle on 16 March 1966. At the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, the motion of defendant in each case for judgment as of nonsuit was sustained. Plaintiffs appealed.\nTurner and Harrison by Fred W. Harrison for plaintiff appellants.\nLucas, Band, Rose, Meyer and Jones by David S. Orcutt for defendant- appellee." }, "file_name": "0577-01", "first_page_order": 601, "last_page_order": 603 }