Opinion ID: 1333820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appeal by security mills of greensboro, inc.

Text: Defendant Security Mills of Greensboro, Inc., assigns as error the failure of the trial court to apply the law, as set out in G.S. § 20-154 and G.S. § 20-141, to the facts on this case. These statutes, in pertinent part, provide: G.S. § 20-154: The driver of any vehicle upon a highway before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety,   . G.S. § 20-141(a): No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. G.S. § 20-141(c): The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing limits shall not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection    or when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic    and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the highway, and to avoid causing injury to any person or property either on or off the highway, in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. G.S. § 20-158 not only requires the driver on a servient highway to stop, but such driver is further required to exercise due care to see that he may enter or cross the dominant highway or street in safety before entering thereon. Jordan v. Blackwelder, 250 N.C. 189, 108 S.E.2d 429. The court's interpretation of G.S. § 20-158 incorporates the requirements contained in G.S. § 20-154, that the motorist must see that such movement can be made in safety, and under the factual situation here presented, an instruction as to G.S. § 20-154 is unnecessary. Here the court charged as to G.S. § 20-158 and applied the law contained therein to the facts of instant case. Further, the theory of defendant's counterclaim is so clearly based on provisions of G.S. § 20-158 that prejudicial error is not shown by failure to charge on G.S. § 20-141 in relation to the fourth issue. Defendant Security Mills of Greensboro, Inc., has failed to show prejudicial error on its appeal. As to appeal of plaintiffs: No Error. As to appeal of defendant Security Mills of Greensboro, Inc.: No Error.