Case Name: MABEL SMITH v. DICK MASON LUMBER COMPANY, INC. (Original Defendant) and PAUL QUEEN (Additional Defendant.)
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1958-10-08
Citations: 249 N.C. 48
Docket Number: 
Parties: MABEL SMITH v. DICK MASON LUMBER COMPANY, INC. (Original Defendant) and PAUL QUEEN (Additional Defendant.)
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 48–48

Head Matter:
MABEL SMITH v. DICK MASON LUMBER COMPANY, INC. (Original Defendant) and PAUL QUEEN (Additional Defendant.)
(Filed 8 October, 1958.)
Appeal by original defendant from Sharp, S. J., May-June 1958 Civil Term of GastoN.
The complaint alleges plaintiff, a guesit of Paul Queen, was injured in a collision between Queen’s truck and a truck of defendant lumber company, backed without adequate warning from a private entrance into the Gastonia-Dallas highway along which the Queen vehicle was traveling. The collision occurred about 6:30 a.m., 1 February 1957. The paved portion of the highway is 22 feet in width. It is alleged that appellant’s vehicle was without lights. It was rainy, foggy, and dark. Visibility was limited to 50 feet according to plaintiff’s testimony. Defendant’s vehicle had been backed SO' as to occupy the entire width of the highway. Plaintiff seeks damages from the lumber company.
Original defendant denied any negligence on its part causing injury to plaintiff but asserted if in fact it was negligent, Queen was likewise negligent, entitling it to contribution for any damages it was compelled to pay. On its motion Queen was made an additional defendant.
Responding to appropriate issues, the jury found plaintiff was injured by the negligence of defendant lumber company, that Queen did not contribute thereto, and the amount of plaintiff’s damage.
Judgment was entered in conformity with the verdict. Defendant lumber company excepted and appealed.
0. A. Warren and Whitener & Mitchem for plaintiff, appellee.
Garland & Garland for defendant, appellant.
L. B. Iiollowell for additional defendant, appellee.

Opinion:
PeR CuRIam.
The only error asserted is the refusal of appellant's motion to nonsuit. An examination of the record discloses evidence sufficient to support the verdict. Conflicts in the evidence were solved by the jury. No new legal question is presented.
No Error.