#### MRS. JESSE WELCH v. INDEPENDENT COACH LINE, Inc.

(Filed 18 December, 1929.)

1. Evidence K. lb — Expert witness may testify as to what X-ray pictures revealed in respect to the injury-

Where an expert witness testifies that he had examined X-ray pictures of the injury, taken under his supervision, and that he had later lost them, it is competent for him to testify from memory as to what the pictures disclosed in regard to the injury in corroboration of his previous testimony as to what he had discovered upon his examination of the injury, and the admission of such testimony is not an admission of the X-ray pictures as substantive evidence, and an objection thereto on this ground cannot be sustained.

2. Highways B c — Instruction as to legal speed on highway held not erroneous under the evidence in this case.

On appeal an instruction of the trial court to the jury will be considered with the evidence in the case, and an instruction that it is negligence as a matter of law for a person to drive a car on the highway at such rate of *131speed that the car cannot be stopped within the distance which the driver is able to see an object on the highway in front of him, is not held erroneous where the evidence discloses that the driver could have seen the wagon, which he hit, at a distance of one thousand feet.

Appeal by defendant from Harwood, J., at May Term, 1929, of Haywood. No error.

Tbe plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries caused by tbe collision of tbe bus in wbicb sbe was traveling as a passenger witb a wagon standing at a side of tbe bigbway. Tbe wagon was loaded with poles wbicb, as a result of tbe impact, broke tbe windshield and injured tbe plaintiff. Tbe two issues of negligence and damages were answered in favor of tbe plaintiff, and from tbe judgment awarded upon tbe verdict tbe defendant appealed, assigning error.

Morgan, Ward & Stamey for plaintiff.

Thomas S. Rollins, Jr., for defendant.

Pee Otjeiam.

Tbe plaintiff’s first witness was a dentist, who testified minutely concerning her injuries. Tbe witness then said that under bis supervision X-ray pictures bad been made of tbe injury in her mouth, and that be bad examined tbe pictures and bad lost them. His testimony as to wbat tbe pictures revealed was admitted, subject to tbe defendant’s exception, in corroboration of wbat be bad previously testified to as discovered in bis examination. It is contended by tbe appellant that this ruling was in effect tbe admission of tbe X-ray pictures as substantive evidence. ¥e think not. If tbe pictures bad been in tbe bands of tbe witness they would have been subject to explanation, and tbe fact, that they bad been lost and were not available would not as a matter of law exclude an explanation based upon tbe memory of tbe witness as to wbat tbe pictures disclosed. It is nowhere intimated that they were admitted as substantive evidence. Honeycult v. Brick Co., 196 N. C., 556. It is tbe common practice to receive maps, diagrams, photographs, and pictures for tbe purpose of giving a representation of objects and places wbicb generally cannot be conveniently described by witnesses. Especially is this true of X-ray pictures wbicb usually require an explanation by parol..

Tbe appellant excepted to tbe following instruction: “It is negligence, as a matter of law, for a person to drive an automobile on a traveled public bigbway used by vehicles and pedestrians at such rate of speed that such automobile cannot be stopped within tbe distance wbicb tbe operator of said car is able-to see an object on tbe bigbway in front of him, and that same rule applies to persons operating a bus on tbe bigbway.”

*132A similar instruction was approved in Nikoleropoulos v. Ramsey, 214 Pac., 304, wbicb is cited in Weston v. R. R., 194 N. C., 210. In tbe latter case tbe principle, while not disapproved, was not strictly applied. But tbe instruction given in tbe case before us must be considered in its application to tbe evidence; and when so applied it must be sustained. There is evidence tending to show that tbe wag on could -have been seen by tbe driver of tbe bus at a distance of one thousand feet, although tbe rays of tbe sun were directly in tbe driver’s face. Tbe driver testified that be was familiar with tbe road; that it was two or three hundred yards from tbe curve to tbe place of tbe collision, and that be was not blinded until be “got right on tbe wagon.” Considered in its application to tbe evidence, there was no error in tbe instruction.

No error.