{ "id": 8626649, "name": "JOHNSON COTTON COMPANY OF CONWAY, INC., v. CARL J. FORD and CONNIE M. FORD, Trading as FORD PRODUCE COMPANY; and RICHARD BRIGMAN", "name_abbreviation": "Johnson Cotton Co. of Conway, Inc. v. Ford", "decision_date": "1954-01-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "292", "last_page": "296", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "239 N.C. 292" } ], "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": "40 S.E. 2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624633 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615232 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E. 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618747 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 408", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608095 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0364-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 486, "char_count": 9607, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.466952242803772e-08, "percentile": 0.3984989086236302 }, "sha256": "21b65ac7866e20a408838ed4d9539b5b53d180f5bebb7934e062dafc4a278508", "simhash": "1:554895c14a2c14f7", "word_count": 1651 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:12.847603+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHNSON COTTON COMPANY OF CONWAY, INC., v. CARL J. FORD and CONNIE M. FORD, Trading as FORD PRODUCE COMPANY; and RICHARD BRIGMAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Devin, C. J.\nThe determinative question of fact upon which the case turned was whether the driver of the truck of defendants Ford as he approached the bridge on the highway, and just as defendant Brigman was emerging therefrom, drove the truck to the left of the center of the highway so as to make it necessary for Brigman to turn to his right and drive off the pavement to avoid being struck by the truck.\nWhile the truck did not come in contact with either of the automobiles which collided, it was the contention of the plaintiff and the defendant Brigman that the driver of the truck was negligent in driving to the left of the center of the highway in meeting an automobile coming from the opposite direction, and that his negligence in this respect was the real efficient cause of tbe injuries sustained. The jury adopted this view and returned verdict against the defendants Ford on the issues submitted. From the judgment rendered thereon the defendants Ford have appealed assigning numerous errors in the rulings of the trial judge.\nThe appellants excepted to the court's admission of certain testimony from Sheriff McMillan, who was offered as a witness by defendant Brig-man. This witness testified that he reached the scene shortly after the collision occurred, and that he heard McLellan (the driver of the plaintiff's automobile) make the statement that \u201cthe truck ran the car off the road.\u201d It was argued that this statement was incompetent, hearsay and prejudicial. \u25a0 It appeared, however, that McLellan had testified, as a witness for the plaintiff, that he had traveled behind the truck for two miles before the collision, and noticed it was being driven on its right side of the highway in a normal way at about 45 miles per hour; that on the down-grade as it approached the bridge the truck driver increased its speed; that \u201cafter he went down the hill and turned the curve, I don\u2019t know how he was driving then.\u201d\nAfter the plaintiff rested, the defendants Ford, with other testimony, offered a written statement by McLellan to the effect that he drove plaintiff\u2019s automobile about 75 yards in the rear of the truck, and that near the bottom of the grade, just before beginning the curve to the right, as the truck was about to go onto the bridge, it slowed up a bit. \u201cAs the truck was going onto the bridge I saw a Plymouth car coming toward me on the east shoulder of the highway. He was off on the shoulder when I first saw it about 75 yards in front of me and he looked to me to be gradually going off the fill. ... I saw the truck approaching the bridge and noticed the truck stayed on the right side as he approached the bridge, although I\u2019m not sure of the position of the truck when he entered on the bridge.\u201d\nThereafter the defendant Brigman offered the testimony of Sheriff McMillan that he heard McLellan say \u201cthe truck ran the car off the road,\u201d to which the defendants Ford objected. The court overruled the objection and admitted this testimony, not against the defendants Ford, but only for the purpose of contradicting the witness McLellan. The defendants Ford excepted on the ground that this statement was incompetent for any purpose.\nThe objection to this evidence cannot be sustained. S. v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E. 2d 408; Bullard v. R. R., 203 N.C. 675, 166 S.E. 802; Stansbury, secs. 46-47. It was competent for defendant Brigman to offer for the purpose of contradicting the testimony of McLellan that he had previously made a statement inconsistent with his testimony as offered by plaintiff and by the defendants Ford.\nWe have examined tbe other exceptions to tbe court\u2019s ruling in tbe admission and exclusion of testimony and find them without substantial merit. Tbe motion of defendants Ford for judgment of nonsuit was properly overruled. Wallace v. Longest, 226 N.C. 161, 37 S.E. 2d 112; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 226 N.C. 692, 40 S.E. 2d 345.\nTbe appellants noted numerous exceptions to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury. In their brief they say \u201cTbe court\u2019s charge, by tbe foregoing exceptions, is challenged throughout, except as to a few formal statements which did not affect the parties one way or the other.\u201d We have examined the court\u2019s charge to the jury in the light of these exceptions and are unable to perceive any material error therein which would justify the award of a new trial.\nThe jury\u2019s verdict on the evidence offered and the judgment thereon will not be disturbed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Devin, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. A. Johnson and Varser, McIntyre \u2022& Henry for defendants Ford, appellants.", "John 8. Butler and F. JD. Ilaclcett for defendant Brigman, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHNSON COTTON COMPANY OF CONWAY, INC., v. CARL J. FORD and CONNIE M. FORD, Trading as FORD PRODUCE COMPANY; and RICHARD BRIGMAN.\n(Filed 15 January, 1954.)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 19\u2014\nThe driver o\u00a3 plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, which was following the truck owned by one of defendants, testified for plaintiff that the truck was being driven on its right side of the highway shortly before the collision, and the owner of the truck offered a written statement by the witness to the same effect.\nHeld,: The other defendant is entitled to introduce the testimony of a declaration made by the witness shortly after the accident that \u201cthe truck ran the car off the road\u201d in order to impeach the witness\u2019 testimony by showing the former inconsistent statement.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 18b, 18h (2) \u2014\nEvidence tending to show that the driver of the truck belonging to one defendant was driving to the left of the center line of the highway upon entering a bridge, forcing- the other defendant, who was driving his car in the opposite direction and who had just cleared the bridge, \u00a1to turn to his right and run off the pavement, causing him to lose control of his vehicle and hit plaintiff\u2019s car, which was following the truck, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence, both in plaintiff\u2019s action and the cross action of the other defendant, even though the truck did not strike either vehicle.\nAppeal by defendants Ford from McLean, Special Judge, January Term, 1953, of RobesON.\nNo error.\nTbis action grew out of a collision on the highway involving three motor vehicles.\nThe time was 1 May, 1950, 5 :45 p.m., and the location was on Highway #301, about 14 miles south of Fayetteville. The highway at this point descends to the south by easy grade, curves slightly to the right and crosses Little Marsh Swamp. There are two bridges over this swamp, each about 50 feet long, with concrete sidewalls, and the distance between them was about 250 feet. The pavement of the highway is 20 feet wide and shoulders extend out on either side 6 feet. The width of the pavement on the bridges is the same as that of the highway.\nOn the occasion alleged the plaintiff\u2019s automobile, driven by its agent MeLellan, was proceeding south. Also proceeding in the same direction, in front of plaintiff\u2019s automobile, was the tractor-trailer truck of the defendants Ford. As the truck approached the northernmost bridge, the defendant Brigman, driving a Plymouth automobile, was coming from the opposite direction going north. Brigman crossed the southernmost bridge and drove on across the northernmost bridge just before the truck reached it. After crossing the bridge, just ahead of the truck, Brigman drove to the right off the pavement onto the shoulder, nearly into the ditch, then righted his automobile but skidded into and collided with plaintiff\u2019s automobile which was in rear of the truck. As result both automobiles were damaged and defendant Brigman sustained a personal injury. Neither automobile came in contact with the truck of defendants Ford, and it proceeded on its way south.\nPlaintiff Cotton Company sued both Ford and Brigman, alleging concurrent negligence on the part of each. It was alleged that Ford\u2019s truck had been driven to its left over the center of the highway in the path of Brigman\u2019s automobile; and that Brigman driving at high speed attempted to turn to bis right in passing the truck and, in consequence, lost control of his automobile, resulting in the collision complained of.\nDefendants Ford denied any negligence on the part of the driver of their truck.\nDefendant Brigman denied negligence on his part, and as an affirmative defense and cross action alleged that his injuries were due to the concurring negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendants Ford, in that plaintiff's driver followed so closely behind the truck he was unable to see the condition on the highway immediately in his front, thus contributing to the injury; and that Ford\u2019s truck was at the moment being driven at an unlawful speed, and to its left of the center of the highway, making it necessary for Brigman to turn to his right off the pavement to avoid being struck.\nThere was conflicting evidence as to the speed of the truck and as to whether it was being driven to the left of the center of the highway; and there was also conflicting evidence as to the speed of Brigman\u2019s automobile and as to whether he had increased his speed in order to cross the bridge before the truck and had lost control in attempting to turn to his right.\nAt the close of all the evidence the plaintiff Cotton Company submitted to a voluntary nonsuit as to Brigman, and Brigman took a nonsuit as to his cross action against the plaintiff.\nThe jury rendered verdict that both the damage to plaintiff\u2019s automobile, and the personal injury and property damage to defendant Brigman were caused by the negligence of the defendants Ford as alleged. Substantial damages were awarded. The defendants Ford excepted and appealed.\nW. A. Johnson and Varser, McIntyre \u2022& Henry for defendants Ford, appellants.\nJohn 8. Butler and F. JD. Ilaclcett for defendant Brigman, appellee." }, "file_name": "0292-01", "first_page_order": 336, "last_page_order": 340 }