#### WILKO CORPORATION and CAVALIER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. S. C. HARRISON and MRS. S. C. HARRISON. and IVAN FOSTER v. S. C. HARRISON and MRS. S. C. HARRISON.

(Filed 11 April, 1962.)

Appeals by plaintiffs from Crissman, J., January 1962 Term, Wilkes Superior Court.

These cases grew out of a collision between a tractor-trailer unit owned by The Wilko Corporation and driven by Ivan Foster, and a Chevrolet pickup truck owned by S. C. Harrison and driven by his wife, Mrs. S. C. Harrison. The accident occurred about noon on Highway No. 601, near Yadkinville. Both drivers were proceeding south on a straight highway approximately 20 feet wide. The weather was fair and the road was dry and free of traffic.

As Mrs. Harrison attempted to pass the tractor-trailer the right side of the pickup and the left side of the tractor-trailer came in contact near the center of the highway. The pickup was slightly damaged. The tractor-trailer ran over an embankment and was almost totally destroyed. Both drivers received some injuries. Each claimed to have been on the proper side of the road. Each claimed the other had crossed to the improper side and had caused the accident.

The corporate plaintiff claimed damages to its equipment and cargo in the sum of $16,600. The individual plaintiff claimed damages of $50,000 as the result of his personal injuries. The defendants set up counterclaim of $100 damage to the vehicle and $1,000 for Mrs. Harrison’s injuries. The court submitted proper issues, all of which were answered in favor of the defendants. The jury awarded Mr. Harrison *709$100 for damages to the pickup, and Mrs. Harrison $400 for her injuries. From judgments in accordance with the verdict, the plaintiffs appealed.

Larry S. Moore, McElwee & Hall, By John E. Hall, for plaintiffs, appellants.

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, By R. M. Stockton, Jr., for defendants, appellees.

Per Curiam.

The only eyewitnesses to the accident were the two drivers. Their testimony was conflicting. The court reviewed the evidence, explained the law arising thereon, and gave proper instructions as to the burden of proof on each of the issues. Nothing in the record indicates the jury could have been confused or misled. The case involved a simple question: Which driver crossed over into the other’s traffic lane, thus causing the collision? The jury resolved the conflict in favor of the defendants. In the record, we find

No error.