Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-08
COURT! ]. DECISIONS.
Notes '' Of + Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest 10
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN. :.
Exclusively for virglnian-Pllot,
CHAMPION v. WE.

T v p.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May s, 1892.
WHERE ONE DRIVING ON THE
HIGHWAY. WAS PUT IN SUDDEN
PERIL BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF.
THE DRIVER OF AN APPROACH
ING VEHICLE, AND Els BUGGY
WAS DRIVEN ON A BANK ON
THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO
AVOID ~ COLLISION AND HE
WAS INJURED, TfIE APPRoCH-
ING DRIVER WAS LIABLE.
IN SUCH CASE, IF PLAINTIFF HAD
A HIRED TEAM AND + DRIVER
AND DID NOT DIRECT THE
DRIVING, THE. NEGLIGENCE OF
HIS DRIVER CONCURING WITH
THAT or THE OTHER DRIVER
DOES NOT RELIEVE THE LAT
TER, BUT BOTH ARE LIABLE.
The plaintiff, travelling salesman,
hired team, with driver furnished,
from liVerymun in Rcidsvillc, to take
him from ReidSviile 10 Spray and re-
turn. On the way back from Spray TO
Reidsvillc the plaintiffs team met in
the road, in the darkness, a team of
The defendants, driven by the driver of
the defendants. The place where the
teams met was level surface, abou.
nifty yards long and twelve or thirteen
leet wide in the clear. The evidence
or the plaintiff tended to prove that
Inc Two teams met Just as the one of
the plaintiff had assembled Il steep hill,
and reached the level road at the top,
the defendants team travelling at the
rate OF eight or ten miles an hour; that
II was so dark, and there being also a
Denu in the road, they could not see
the defendants team until within
twenty yards: that, upon seeing the de-
PENDANTS team. they began to shout to
the driver to stop. and that no attcn-
ton was paid to the cries; that the
plaintiiIs driver, to prevent n collision
ana injury, turned suddenly. out of the
road, and upon Il bank, and, i'm doing
SO, upset the buggy, by which the
plaintllr was thrown out and injured
The defendants evidence tended To
show that their team was going at u
SLOW rate OF speed, about three miles
an hour; that there was plenty of room
Tor both teams to pass without collision
or injury TO either; and that at the
time OF meeting. the defendants driver
pulled his team as far out of the road
as 1t was possible to do.
There was verdict for plaintiff, and
denfendant appealed.
The Court says:
AS 10 the rule of the prudent man,
MS honor told the jury that the apprc-
hension for their safety by the driver
must have been reasonable; and, 10
further illustrate that doctrine he said
In his charge in chief:
TO answer the first Issue Yes you
must md by prepondcrance of the
evidence; IN the first place, that defen-
dint driver was driving in such q
negligent manner as to cause the driver
iunt (plaintiff's drivcr) to believe his
DuEEy would be struck, II he remained
III the road, and that, to avoid n COLI
sion. Hunt drove upon the bank. and
the plaintiff was thereby thrown out
and injured. In the next place, YOU
must iind by Drcponderance OF the
evidence that driver OF ordinary pru-
dence. under the circumstances, and
when Hunt drove on the bank, would
have had reason to believe that there
was danger of collision. and would pro-
badly have driven upon the bank to
avoid danger"
The other sections of the sixteenth
prayer MS honor refused to give. on
the contrary. he instructed the jury:
Now. even II Hunt was negligent i'm
the manner OF his driving while passing
defendants CONFERENCE.-The. for exam
pie. by turning out more suddenly, or
higher upon the bank, than an ordi-
nnrily prudent man would have DONE
ms negligence, under these circum-
stances. would be considered as concur
ring and contributing with defendants
negligence. in together being the proXi-
mate clllS1- Of any Injury Sustained by
plaintiff, il plaintiff Was thrown out nv
The driving upon the bank while
passing. Defendants would not be re-
lieved from liability by this concurrins
negligence of Hunt. which co-operated
with their own drivers producing the
injury"
That instruction was, I'm our opinion.
proner. That view of the law is ably
stated In the oDinion of the court in
Little V. Hackett, 1l6 u. S.. 36G. There
the plaintiff below was injured by the
collision of n railroad train with the
carriage in which he was riding. The
railroad company set up the defense of
contributory negligence. contending
that the drivers negligence was TO be
imputed to the plaintiff. On the trial
his honor instructed the Jury as fol-
lows:
II charge you that when n person
hires public hack or carriage. which
Mt the time is in the care or the driver
Tor the purpose of temporary convey
ance. and gives directions to the driver
as to the place or places to which he
desires to be conveyed, and gives no
special directions as 10 his mode ar
manner of driving, he is not responsi-
bic for the acts or negligence of the
driver: and, If he sustains an iniurv
by means of collision between HE
carriage and another he NAV recover
damages from any party by whose
{