Case ID: nc_240/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pbb Cxtexam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BILLY C. BRYANT, by His Next Friend, C. O. BRYANT, v. ODELL WATFORD and LEE SUMMEY.
    (Filed 19 May, 1954.)
    Automobiles §§ 8d, 18h (2), 18h (3) —
    In this action to recover for damages resulting from a collision when plaintiff’s car struck defendants’ truck which was stopped on the highway without lights, the evidence is held sufficient to take the case to the jury and support the verdict establishing negligence on the part of defendants and the want of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.
    Apjpeai, by defendants from Clarkson, J., at February Civil Term, 1954, of DavidsoN.
    Civil action to recover for personal injury and property damage allegedly resulting from negligence of defendant in stopping and parking truck of defendant Watford, operated by defendant Summey at tbe request and personal direction of defendant "Watford, upon the paved and main traveled portion of State Highway 109 at night without lights or warning signal as required by law, when it was practicable to stop and park same off the paved and main traveled portion of the highway.
    Defendants, answering, deny that they were negligent as alleged in the complaint of plaintiff, and plead his contributory negligence in bar of any recovery by him. And defendant Watford filed cross-action averring that plaintiff was negligent in several aspects which solely and proximately caused the collision and consequent damage to the truck.
    Plaintiff filed reply denying that he was negligent as alleged in the cross-action.
    Upon trial in Superior Court six issues were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the first, as to negligence of defendants, “Yes”; the second, as to contributory negligence of plaintiff, “No”; and the third, as to damages plaintiff is entitled to recover “$1,850.00.” The other issues arising in respect to the cross-action were not answered.
    On the verdict rendered judgment was signed in favor of plaintiff, and against defendants. Defendants appeal therefrom to Supreme Court, and assign error.
    
      Hubert E. Olive and B. F. Van Landingham, for plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      W(User ■& Brinkley for defendants, appellants.
    
   Pbb Cxtexam.

Perusal of the case on appeal reveals that, as to the issues answered, the evidence offered upon the trial below is sufficient to take the case to the jury, and to support the verdict of the jury. Prejudicial error is not shown on the appeal.

Hence, in the judgment signed, this Court rules that there is

No error.