Title: Hunter v. Fisher
Citation: 100 S.E.2d 321, 247 N.C. 226
Docket Number: 240
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: November 20, 1957

100 S.E.2d 321 (1957)
247 N.C. 226
Mrs. Blanche W. HUNTER
v.
M. L. FISHER, M. H. Clark, and H. S. Kimrey, t/a Waccamaw Oil Transport Company, and James M. Cameron, Original Defendants, and
Silas N. Hunter, Additional Defendant.
No. 240.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
November 20, 1957.
*322 Blakeney &amp; Alexander, Charlotte, by J. W. Alexander, Jr., Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellant.
Helms &amp; Mulliss, James B. McMillan, Charlotte, for additional defendant Hunter, appellant.
Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell &amp; Hickman, Charlotte, by Hugh L. Lobdell, Charlotte, for original defendants, appellees.
HIGGINS, Justice.
The trial of this cause developed into a contest between the plaintiff and the additional defendant on the one side and the original defendants on the other. Each sought to have the jury find the collision and resulting damages were caused by the negligence of the other. The evidence was voluminous and in conflict with respect to the traffic lights and the right of way. The jury found that both drivers were negligent. The evidence was sufficient to support the findings.
The assignment of error mainly relied upon by the plaintiff relates to the court's charge on the issue of damages. After reviewing in detail the evidence of plaintiff's injuries, the court charged:
The foregoing charge is in substantial compliance with the rule for the assessment of damages in cases of this character. Pascal v. Burke Transit Co., 229 N.C. 435, 50 S.E.2d 534; Owens v. Kelly, 240 N.C. 770, 84 S.E.2d 163; Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 233 N.C. 607, 65 S.E.2d 120; Helmstetler v. Duke Power Co., 224 N.C. 821, 32 S.E.2d 611; Smith v. Thompson, 210 N.C. 672, 188 S.E. 395; Patrick v. Bryan, 202 N.C. 62, 162 S.E. 207; Campbell v. High Point, R., 201 N.C. 102, 159 S.E. 327; Cole v. Wagner, 197 N.C. 692, 150 S.E. 339, 71 A.L.R. 220; Mangum v. Atlantic Coast Line R., 188 N.C. 689, 125 S.E. 549; Murphy v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 186 N.C. 746, 120 S.E. 342; Batts v. Home Tel. Co., 186 N.C. 120, 118 *323 S.E. 893; Ledford v. Valley River Lumber Co., 183 N.C. 614, 112 S.E. 421.
The evidence was sufficient to support the finding the additional defendant was negligent in that he made a left turn in the original defendant's line of traffic without ascertaining the movement could be made in safety and that such negligence was one of the proximate causes of the accident and resulting injury to the plaintiff. Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353, 82 S.E.2d 331; Butner v. Spease, 217 N.C. 82, 6 S.E.2d 808; Smith v. Dillon Supply Co., 214 N.C. 406, 199 S.E. 392.
The trial judge reviewed the evidence and correctly charged on all essential features of the case. If additional instructions or amplification were desired by either appellant, request for them should have been made in apt time. Metcalf v. Foister, 232 N.C. 355, 61 S.E.2d 77. Reason to disturb the verdict does not appear.
On plaintiff's appealNo error.
On additional defendant's appealNo error.