Title: Upchurch v. Hudson Funeral Home, Inc.

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

140 S.E.2d 17 (1965)
263 N.C. 560
James E. UPCHURCH
v.
HUDSON FUNERAL HOME, INC., a Corporation, and Ronald C. Johnson.
No. 676.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
January 29, 1965.
*18 Everett, Everett & Everett, Durham, and Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett, Raleigh, for plaintiff.
Bryant, Lipton, Bryant & Battle, Durham, for defendants.
MOORE, Justice.
Defendants assign errors which, they contend, entitle them to a new trial.
The City of Durham Traffic Code, pertaining to automatic traffic lights, and an amendment thereto, Ordinance No. 1134, were pleaded by plaintiffs and admitted in evidence. It was stipulated by the parties that the code, as amended by said ordinance, had been duly adopted. The pertinent portion of Ordinance No. 1134 provides as follows:
Defendants contend that this ordinance was enacted without authority, is in direct conflict with G.S. § 20-156(b) and is void, *19 and that the court erred to their prejudice in giving effect thereto in the charge, and in nonsuiting corporate defendant's counterclaim by reason thereof. Corporate defendant concedes that if the ordinance is valid the nonsuit of its counterclaim was proper.
G.S. § 20-156(b) provides as follows:
In Davis v. City of Charlotte, 242 N.C. 670, 89 S.E.2d 406, involving a city ordinance with respect to the sale of beer, it is declared: "A municipal corporation is a creature of the General Assembly. Ward v. City of Elizabeth City, 121 N.C. 1, 27 S.E. 993. Municipal corporations have no inherent powers but can exercise only such powers as are expressly conferred by the General Assembly or such as are necessarily implied by those expressly given. State v. Ray, 131 N.C. 814, 42 S.E. 960, 60 L.R.A. 634; State v. McGee, 237 N.C. 633, 75 S.E.2d 783." Further: "`Municipal ordinances are ordained for local purposes in the exercise of a delegated legislative function, and must harmonize with the general laws of the state. In case of conflict the ordinance must yield to the state law.' State v. Freshwater, 183 N.C. 762, 111 S.E. 161, 162, and cases cited therein."
State v. Stallings, 189 N.C. 104, 126 S.E. 187, is to the same effect. The Court struck down a local ordinance requiring traffic to stop at street intersections; the State law only required traffic to reduce speed to 10 miles per hour before entering intersections. This case was decided in 1925; G.S. § 20-156(b) was enacted in 1937. We will have occasion to refer again to this case in the following discussion.
In the solution of the problem presented, two questions arise: (1) Has the General Assembly expressly or by necessary implication authorized municipalities to adopt regulations such as Ordinance No. 1134 above; and (2) has the General Assembly by the enactment of G.S. § 20-156(b) made the "right of way" of emergency ambulances absolute, so as to bring such an ordinance into conflict with State law?
Municipalities are empowered to "adopt such ordinances for the regulation and use of the streets * * * as it (they) may deem best for the public welfare * * *," and "[t]o provide for the regulation, diversion, and limitation of * * * vehicular traffic upon public streets (and) highways * * * of the city (municipalities)." G.S. § 160-200(11) and (31). It has been held that these provisions authorize the erection of automatic traffic control lights by municipalities. Hamilton v. Town of Hamlet, 238 N.C. 741, 78 S.E.2d 770; Hodges v. City of Charlotte, 214 N.C. 737, 200 S.E. 889.
At the time of the enactment of G.S. § 20-156(b) in 1937 and as a part of the same Act (P.L.1937, c. 407) the General Assembly enacted G.S. § 20-169, providing as follows:
G.S. § 20-158 provides as follows:
Subsections (a) and (b) are parts of P.L. 1937, c. 407. Subsection (c) was enacted as S.L.1949, c. 583, § 2. It will be observed that subsection (b) provides that G.S. 20-158 "shall not interfere with the regulations prescribed by towns and cities." "Regulations" necessarily means the ordinances adopted by municipalities for the control of traffic at intersectionsrules pertaining to right of way. The provisions of subsection (b) were most likely included to avoid the holding of this Court in State v. Stallings, supra. In any event, it has that effect. G.S. § 20-158 does not debar municipalities from requiring ambulances to observe traffic lights; by implication, at least, it gives municipalities plenary power to regulate traffic at intersections.
We now inquire whether it was the intent of the General Assembly to confer upon emergency ambulances unrestricted right-of-way privileges. G.S. § 20-156 (b) confers on police and fire department vehicles the same right-of-way privileges it grants to emergency ambulances. G.S. § 20-157 requires motorists, upon the approach of police and fire department vehicles sounding audible signals, to drive to the righthand curb or edge of the highway and stop; this requirement does not apply to ambulances. Emergency ambulances are expressly excepted from the requirements of G.S. § 20-155, which provides rules for the determination of rights of way at intersections at which there are no traffic control signs or devices. They are also expressly excepted from the requirements of G.S. § 20-158.1, which authorizes "yield right-of-way" signs. But they are not, by any reference or express provision, excepted from the requirements of G.S. § 20-158(a), which provides for stop signs and the observance thereof. Nor are they expressly or by reference excepted from the requirements of G.S. § 20-158(c), which provides *21 for automatic traffic control lights and the observance thereof. The presence of express exceptions in G.S. § 20-155 and G.S. § 20-158.1, and the absence of such exceptions in G.S. § 20-158(a) and G.S. § 20-158(c), must be given significance. In construing a statute it will be assumed that the legislature comprehended the import of the words employed by it to express its intent. State v. Baker, 229 N.C. 73, 48 S.E.2d 61. G.S. § 20-156(b) was enacted in 1937, G.S. § 20-158(c) in 1949; the former was not by reference made an exception to the provisions of the latter, as had been done in other statutes before and after 1949. "Where the Legislature has made no exception to the positive terms of a statute, the presumption is that it intended to make none, and it is a general rule of construction that the courts have no authority to create, and will not create, exceptions to the provisions of a statute not made by the act itself." 57 Am.Jur., Statutes, s. 432, p. 453. We conclude that the General Assembly did not intend the right-of-way privileges accorded emergency ambulances by G.S. § 20-156(b) to be extended to apply to intersections controlled by automatic traffic lights. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that said Ordinance No. 1134 is valid and enforceable.
This and related questions have been the subject of many opinions by the courts in other jurisdictions. Decisions have, of course, dealt with the construction of applicable statutes. There is a comprehensive annotation, dealing with the subject, in 84 A.L.R.2d 121, entitled "AmbulanceInjuryLiability." Our decision here is not in conflict with the principles therein stated.
Defendants contend that the judge erred in propounding questions and making comments during the course of the trial amounting to an expression of opinion on the weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff's first witness, a traffic officer, was under cross-examination by defendants' counsel. He was being examined with respect to the limits of vision to the east along Main Street from certain points in Duke Street north of the intersection. The judge interrupted, and the following transpired:
Later, while plaintiff's second witness, a traffic officer, was being questioned by plaintiff's counsel on direct examination with respect to limits of vision, the judge again interrupted. The following colloquy took place between the judge and plaintiff's counsel:
The slightest intimation from the judge as to the weight, importance or effect of the evidence has great weight with the jury, and, therefore, we must be careful to see that neither party is unduly prejudiced by any expression from the bench which is likely to prevent a fair and impartial trial. State v. Woolard, 227 N.C. 645, 44 S.E.2d 29; State v. Ownby, 146 N.C. 677, 61 S.E. 630. "Every suitor is entitled by the law to have his cause considered with the `cold neutrality of the impartial judge' and the equally unbiased mind of properly instructed jury. This right can neither be denied nor abridged." Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C. 184, 56 S.E. 855.
Comments by the judge, such as appear in the present record, run counter to the intent and meaning of G.S. § 1-180. They constitute error. Our inquiry is whether they were prejudicial to appellants.
The comment of the judge that the matter of vision "work(s) both ways" was, in the light of all of the evidence, the statement of an obvious fact, and it was so considered by defendants' counsel who stated, "It sounds logical and reasonable." The judge made the comment both while defendants were presenting evidence by way of cross-examination and while plaintiff was presenting evidence by direct examination. The jury must have understood that the comment applied to the evidence of both parties. The streets were relatively level and intersected at right angles. There was a tall building at the northwest corner of the intersection. The points from which the limits of vision were tested were at the centers of the streets. There were other vehicles standing at both approaches to the intersection. The Chevrolet and ambulance approached and entered the intersection at approximately the same time. The comment as to the comparative ranges of vision could not have prejudiced defendants.
The court commented that "the meat in the coconut is the situation with respect to the light and who had the right of way." The court stated further that "if the ambulance had a business trip and had on its siren and red lights, then all traffic is to yield to that ambulance." This last comment is more favorable to defendants than the law permits in the situation presented. Defendants recognize, as far as their defense is concerned, that the crucial question was, "who had the right of way?" We find the following statement in defendants' brief: "The appellant admits that if the Judge was correct in this theory that the City Ordinance prevailed, then the nonsuit of defendant's counterclaim was correct." The question of right of way was crucial and controlling in defending against plaintiff's action. Plaintiff's right of way was paramount. To avoid liability it was incumbent on defendants to show that he had forfeited his right of way by failure to keep *23 a proper lookout or failure to maintain proper control. The court, in the charge, instructed the jury that notwithstanding plaintiff's favored position he was still under duty "to keep his motor vehicle under control, (and) to keep a reasonably careful lookout."
The judge's comments are not approved, but we do not find them sufficiently prejudicial to defendants to warrant a new trial.
Plaintiff was self-employed. He was an instrument maker and machinist. He had a shop in which he made repairs and did "machine work and blacksmithing." Before the accident he personally did "all of the machine and most of the blacksmith work and helped on the welding." He hired extra help as he needed it. His sole income was the profits from the business. After the accident he was largely limited to supervision of the work because of the injuries he had suffered. He had to employ additional help, and had them do much of the work he had formerly done himself. The labor costs therefore increased.
Over the objection of defendants, plaintiff was permitted to testify that his income for 1959, before the accident, was $5200, that after the accident his income was $2600 for 1960, $3100 for 1961, $3100 for 1962, and $3400 for 1963. He also testified, over objection, there were no unusual circumstances, other than his condition and increased labor costs, affecting income, and he testified as to the amount of increase in labor costs.
In our opinion the evidence was admissible; it was pertinent on the question of loss of earning power. In Smith v. Corsat, 260 N.C. 92, 96-97, 131 S.E.2d 894, 897, we said:
No error.