Case ID: nc_241/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NANNIE T. HARRISON v. ANNIE B. KAPP and THOMAS E. KAPP.
    (Filed 14 January, 1955.)
    Automobiles §§ 8i, 18h (2) —
    ■ This action was instituted to recover damages resulting from a collision at an intersection of streets in a municipality. Plaintiff’s evidence tbat slie entered tbe intersection first and tbat defendants entered tbe intersection from ber left, is sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury over defendants’ motion to nonsuit. G.S. 20-155.
    Appeal by tbe plaintiff from Fo.untain, Special Judge, 19 July, 1954 Term, Forsyte.
    Tbe plaintiff brought this action, alleging she suffered personal injuries and property damage on account of tbe actionable negligence of tbe defendants in a collision between her Ford and the Plymouth driven by tbe defendant Annie B. Kapp. The accident occurred at 11:30 a.m. on a clear day at tbe intersection of First Street and Cloverdale Avenue in tbe City of Winston-Salem.
    Tbe defendants denied negligence on tbe part of Annie B. Kapp and set up a counterclaim alleging actionable negligence on tbe part of tbe plaintiff and asked for recovery for personal injury and property damage suffered by the defendants.
    Tbe plaintiff’s evidence disclosed tbat West First Street runs near, east and west and tbat Cloverdale Avenue runs near north and south. There was an electrically operated traffic control signal light over the center of the intersection. However, at the time of the accident this light was temporarily out of working order. The plaintiff was going west on First Street, the defendants north on Cloverdale. The defendants, therefore, were to plaintiff’s left, and the plaintiff was on the defendants’ right. Mrs. Motsinger, a plaintiff’s witness, testified she saw the accident; that plaintiff eritered the intersection first, at about 15 miles per hour; that the defendants did not stop as they approached the intersection, but entered at about 20 or 25 miles per hour. The cars came to resfion the northwest corner of the intersection.
    At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, motion for judgment of nonsuit was made and sustained, and from the judgment dismissing the action the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
    
      Ingle, Rucker ■& Ingle for plaintiff, appellant.
    
    
      Deal, Hutchins ■& Minor, Jyy Fred S. Hutchins, for defendants, appel-lees.
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s showing that she entered the intersection first, that she was on the right and the defendants on her left, is sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit and take the case to the jury. G-.S. 20-155. As is customary in reversing a nonsuit, we refrain from discussing the evidence, except to the extent necessary to show the reason for the conclusion reached.

Beversed.