{ "id": 8631312, "name": "ED. HUGH LEE, Administrator of ED. HUGH LEE, Jr., v. CAVENESS PRODUCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. Caveness Produce Co.", "decision_date": "1929-11-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "714", "last_page": "718", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 N.C. 714" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "137 S. E., 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217809 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S. E., 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N. C., 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/178/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0613-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 494, "char_count": 9815, "ocr_confidence": 0.448, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.907851262220699e-07, "percentile": 0.7312825960123543 }, "sha256": "c496fb51b772ecb3690fac6026f1eb1d2ed3d62f6cfc243a3611d7f9e1ba4f7c", "simhash": "1:f883d25a2a129073", "word_count": 1759 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ED. HUGH LEE, Administrator of ED. HUGH LEE, Jr., v. CAVENESS PRODUCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe plaintiff alleges, as we understand his complaint, that the defendant\u2019s truck was parked on the side of the road, partly on the hard surface, in the night time, without any lights burning, in violation of C. S., 2615, and that this condition continued \u2014 the lights not being turned on by the defendant\u2019s servant in charge of the truck \u2014 \u2022 until it was too late for Williams, in the exercise of reasonable care, to pass in safety with both the lead car, which he was driving, and the car that was being towed, in which plaintiff\u2019s intestate was riding. Thus, it is alleged, in effect, that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was killed by the negligence of the driver of defendant\u2019s truck while acting in the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the defendant\u2019s business. The complaint, therefore, is good as against a demurrer. Misenheimer v. Hayman, 195 N. C., 613, 143 S. E., 1.\n\u2022We have not overlooked the allegation set out in paragraph 2 above, and stressfully urged as fatal by the defendant, to the effect that plaintiff\u2019s intestate could not see the light of the truck because of the Buick car, and was unable to follow directly in the path of the car driven by Williams, by reason of the fact that he did not have sufficient time to make the turn in the same manner and to the same degree as was done by the said Williams. But this allegation, taken in connection with others appearing in the complaint, we apprehend, may be interpreted in a light favorable to the plaintiff, even if it also be susceptible to a contrary interpretation. Nor have we failed to observe that in one place plaintiff alleges the truck was \u201cstopped on a slight curve,\u201d while in another'be says that Williams was driving \u201con a stretch of road which was practically straight.\u201d\nWhen a case is presented on demurrer, we are required by the statute, C. S., 535, to construe the complaint liberally, \u201cwith a view to substantial justice between the parties,\u201d and in enforcing this provision, we have adopted the rule \u201cthat if in any portion of it or to any extent it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for that purpose can he fairly gathered from it, the pleading will stand, however inartificially it may have been drawn or however uncertain, defective and redundant may be its statements, for, contrary to the common-law rule, every reasonable intendment and presumption must be made in favor of the pleader.\u201d Dixon v. Green, 178 N. C., 205, 100 S. E., 262.\nThe demurrer interposed by the defendant was properly overruled. S. v. Bank, 193 N. C., 524, 137 S. E., 593.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pou & Pou and Jno. W. Hinsdale for plaintiff.", "Clyde A. Douglass for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ED. HUGH LEE, Administrator of ED. HUGH LEE, Jr., v. CAVENESS PRODUCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 November, 1929.)\n1. Pleadings D a \u2014 Where pleadings liberally construed allege cause o\u00ed action demurrer thereto will be overruled.\nUpon a demurrer the pleadings are liberally construed in the light most favorable to the pleader, and where there are conflicting allegations, and one of them is sufficient to allege a cause of action, the demurrer thereto will not be sustained. C. S., 535.\n2. Highways B h \u2014 In this case held: allegations o\u00ed complaint wei*e sufficient to state canse of action for actionable negligence.\nAllegations in the complaint liberally construed that the defendant\u2019s driver of its truck, acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of his master\u2019s business, stopped the truck he was driving on a dangerous place on the highway on the top of a hill near a curve in the road, at night, that he turned off the rear light of the truck and turned it on again when he heard an automobile approaching, and that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was guiding a car being towed by the car heard by the driver of the truck, and that the light on the truck was turned on too late for the intestate to see the danger and guide his car in safety behind the lead car: Held, the allegations of actionable negligence against the defendant are sufficient as against a demurrer.\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., at Second June Term, 1929, of \"Wake.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful death caused by a collision between the car in which plaintiff\u2019s intestate was riding and the defendant\u2019s truck.\nThe material allegations of the complaint, so far as essential to a proper understanding of the legal question involved, may be abridged and stated as follows:\n1. That plaintiff is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Ed. Hugh Lee, Jr., deceased; and that the defendant is a corporation engaged in transporting by trucks goods, wares and merchandise over the highways of the State.\n2. That on the night of 6 December, 1928, plaintiff\u2019s intestate and a colored man by the name of Joe Williams, went out in a Buick roadster to tow in a Dodge sedan automobile belonging to plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\n\u201cThat they arrived at Auburn about 4:30 a.m., and secured the said Dodge car to the rear of said Buick roadster by a towing chain, leaving an interval between the two cars of about 12 feet; that the said Williams then got into the Buick car and plaintiff\u2019s intestate got into the Dodge car which was to be towed, and said parties proceeded with said cars on highway No. 10 in the direction of Smithfield, N. C.; that the said Williams, while driving in a careful and prudent manner on a stretch of road which was practically straight, at a speed somewhere around 25 miles an hour, when in about 4 miles of Smithfield, suddenly saw the red rear light of defendant\u2019s truck flash into view; that at this time the ear driven by said Williams was within 50 to 75 yards of the said light; that the said Williams could not instantly tell whether said truck was moving or not, but he immediately began to reduce his speed as much as was practical, taking into consideration that he was towing another car; and proceeded to turn to the left'in order to avoid :said light.\u2019\n\u201cThat when within 25 or 35 yards of said red light the bulk of the truck suddenly came into view, extending 7 or 8 feet in the air aboye said red light and projecting over the hard surface road to the extent of something like 4% feet; that the said Williams thereupon continued to turn to the left and passed the end of said truck, projecting into the road, by a margin of 2 or 2% feet.\n\u201cThat plaintiff\u2019s intestate, who could not see the light of the truck, the same being hidden by the Buick car, was unable to follow directly in the path of the car driven by Williams by reason of the fact that he did not have sufficient time to make the turn in the same manner and to the same degree as was done by the said Williams; that the car being guided by plaintiff\u2019s intestate crashed into the rear of defendant\u2019s said truck, and plaintiff\u2019s intestate was instantly killed.\u201d\n3. \u201cThat the point at which the agent and servant of defendant company had stopped his truck is on a slight curve and something like 200 yards on the Raleigh side from where the said highway No. 10 makes an abrupt turn to the left and curves over a steep hill; that the said Williams was aware of the fact that he was approaching a dangerous curve on a hill and, not knowing exactly how close he was to said curve, was well over on the right side of the road at the time when he first saw the red light of defendant\u2019s truck, knowing that a towed car might be difficult to manage if he met a car speeding towards him and coming over said hill and around said curve.\u201d\n4. \u201cThat defendant\u2019s truck was loaded with produce belonging to defendant, which defendant\u2019s servant was conveying to certain points in Eastern North Carolina; that said driver had stopped the truck at a point he knew to be dangerously close to an abrupt curve coming over a steep hill a short distance in front of him allowing the rear of said truck to project upon the hard surface a distance of more than 4% feet, and had cut out the lights on said truck and only turned the same on when he heard the approach of the car driven by the said Williams and not before said car had arrived within a distance of 50 to 75 yards from where he had parked said truck.\u201d\n5. \u201cThat plaintiff\u2019s intestate met his death, as hereinbefore set forth, by reason of the careless, negligent and wanton conduct of defendant\u2019s said agent and servant, in that:\n\u201c(a) He parked said truck in such a manner that the rear of the same protruded over the hard surface road for a distance of more than 4% feet, occupying at the time of the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, more than half of the right-hand side of said road.\n\u201c(b) After parking said truck, as hereinbefore described, he cut off his lights and failed to turn the same on until the car driven by Williams was within 50 to 75 yards of said truck, thus rendering it impossible for the said Williams and plaintiff\u2019s intestate to avoid the collision between the car being towed and the said truck.\n\u201c(e) Defendant\u2019s said servant parked his truck at a dangerous point in the road by reason of -a sharp curve coming over a steep hill a short distance in front of him, well knowing that the position in which he had parked his truck added greatly to the risk of a collision between his said truck and a towed car going in the same direction his truck was headed.\u201d\n6. That plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $50,000.\nA demurrer was interposed on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that upon the facts stated in the complaint, the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate as a matter of law, was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Joe Williams, agent and servant at the time of plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\nFrom a judgment overruling the demurrer, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nPou & Pou and Jno. W. Hinsdale for plaintiff.\nClyde A. Douglass for defendant." }, "file_name": "0714-01", "first_page_order": 778, "last_page_order": 782 }