#### MRS. BERTHA SPRUEILL, Administratrix of the Estate of MAURICE SPRUEILL, JR. v. LINARD HAMLET.

(Filed 20 November 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiff from Brock, S.J., May 27, 1963 Civil Session of PERSON.

Plaintiff brings this action to -recover damages resulting from tire -death of her intestate, -passenger in a -bus traveling month on Highway 57. She alleges her intestate’s death was proxi-mately caused by defendant’® negligence in that he o-pierated hie truck 'in a southward direction at night loaded with slab wood inadequately secured and in such manner that the width of the vehicle and load exceeded ninety-six inches, and while so- loaded defendant operated his truck without adequate lights and either to the left of .or in such close proximity to- the center of the highway that one of the pieces -of wood projecting from his -truck pierced the bus, striking and killing plaintiff’s intestate when the vehicles .passed.

Defendant .denied plaintiff’s allegations -of negligence. He alleged he was -driving hi® vehicle in hi® right lane; the bus driver veered to- his left and -came into defendant’® lane of travel; “at that instant the left side -of the bus sideswiped the left .side -oif the -bed of -the truck . . . the force of the collision .caused one of the wooden, slabs loaded on the bed of Ibis .truck to- become dislodged .and .the same penetrated the win-doiw -on the left front and side of the bus and thereafter struck plaintiff’s intestate.” At-the -conclusion o-f plaintiff’s evidence, defendant’s motion for -non/suit was -allowed. Plaintiff excepted and -appealed.

Burns, Long & Burns by F. Kent Burns, Young, Moore & Henderson by J. C. Moore for plaintiff appellant.

Haywood and Denny by Egbert L. Haywood and George W. Miller, Jr., for defendant appellee.

*547PeR Cuhiam.

We have carefully examined the evidence. We are of ■the opinion and hold that, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is sufficient to permit a jury to find the facts to be a® alleged by plaintiff. If the facts be a® plaintiff alleges, defendant is liable. No useful purpose would be served by detailed analysis of the evidence. In accord with our practice, Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 129 S.E. 2d 610, discussion of the evidence is omitted.

Reversed.