Case ID: nc_174/html/0771-02.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

PRESSLY MITCHELL v. RALEIGH PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY et al.
    (Filed 17 October, 1917.)
    Appeal and Error — Harmless Error — Auto Trucks — Statutes.
    The evidence in this case presented an issue of fact as to whether the driver of an auto truck failed to stop his truck upon being signaled, as required by chapter 107, Laws 1913, or that such failure caused the injury alleged; and the exceptions to the ruling of the court upon the evidence being .without significance and appreciable effect upon the verdict, no reversible error is found on appeal.
    Civil actios, tried before Devin, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1917, of "Wake.
    The action was to recover damages for injuries caused by alleged negligence of defendant in failing to stop bis auto truck when signalled to do so, as required by chapter 107, Laws 1913.
    On three issues submitted, of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages, there was verdict, for defendant on the first issue. Judgment on the verdict, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.
    
      W. H. Lyon, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
    
      B. N. Simms for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

There was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that, on 4 November, 1914, he was driving, at the head of a funeral procession, a wagon carrying the casket and dead body of a deceased colored person, when, seeing defendant approach with his truck loaded with crates and bottles and making considerable noise, plaintiff signalled to the driver to stop and he neglected or refused to do so, contrary to provisions of statute, chap. 107, Laws 1913, and by reason of said neglect, plaintiff’s horse ran away, throwing plaintiff from the wagon and causing painful bruises and injuries, for which he brings suit.

The evidence on part of defendant tended to show that defendant did stop when signalled to, and waited for the procession to pass, and as plaintiff’s wagon started- down a hill it ran on the horse, which began to kick, breaking the harness, and that he ran away on that account.

Under a correct charge, the jury, accepting defendant’s version of the occurrence, have answered the issue of defendant’s negligence “No,” and we see no reason for disturbing the results of the trial.

The objections to rulings of the court on questions of evidence are .without substantial significance and, in our opinion, could have had no appreciable effect on the verdict. The judgment for defendant is therefore affirmed.

No error.