Case ID: nc_227/html/0698-02.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

NAOMI McM. LEDFORD, Admx., v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, et al.
    (Filed 31 January, 1947.)
    Aepeal by plaintiff from Carr, J., at October Term, 1946, of Forsyth.
    Civil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendants.
    
      From judgment of nonsuit entered at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, she appeals, assigning errors.
    
      Hlledge <& Hayes and H. Bryce Parker for plaintiff, appellant.
    
    
      Womble, Carlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, City of Winston-Salem, appellee.
    
    
      Craige <£ Craige and Kerr Craige Ramsay for defendant, Winston-Salem Railway Co., appellee.
    
   Per Curiam.

Tbe scene of tbe present accident is tbe same as tbat appearing in tbe case of Dillon v. Winston-Salem, et al., reported in 221 N. C., 512, 20 S. E. (2d), 845, witb full description of tbe location, to wbieb reference may be bad to avoid repetition. Tbe essential and operative facts of tbe two cases are strikingly similar, except tbat in tbe Dillon Case plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger directing tbe operation of tbe automobile in wbieb be was riding, while bere plaintiff’s intestate was tbe driver of tbe death car. Both cases are controlled by tbe same principles of law, and both were dismissed on demurrer to the evidence in tbe Superior Court. Tbe judgment in tbe Dillon Case was affirmed on appeal, and a like result must follow bere. No useful purpose would be served by detailing again a parallel state of facts. Alberty v. Greensboro, 219 N. C., 649, 14 S. E. (2d), 635.

Recognizing tbe pertinency of tbe Dillon decision, tbe plaintiff seeks to distinguish tbe subject case from tbat one, but tbe controlling facts are too nearly alike to warrant a different conclusion. Of course, there are differences in detail. These, however, are unimportant. This was tbe result reached in tbe Superior Court, and we are unable to say there is reversible error in tbe judgment.

Affirmed.