Opinion ID: 1224738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appeal by defendants boulerice

Text: A close study of plaintiff's evidence in the record in the instant case, which is admitted by all parties to be substantially similar to the evidence stated in the opinion on the first appeal, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving to her the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, tends to show the following: About 2:15 p. m. on 17 July 1962 plaintiff was a passenger in the Boulerice car driven by Cecelia W. Boulerice, her daughter. This car was headed in an easterly direction on Factory Street and approaching the intersection of Factory and Fleetwood Streets. It was traveling at a speed of about 25 miles per hour. As the Boulerice car entered the intersection, a Ford automobile, driven by William Leon Hare and owned by his father Robert E. Hare, came out of Fleetwood Street, entered the intersection, turned to its right in the intersection, and headed towards Parsonage Street. The two automobiles came very close together when they passed, but did not strike or collide. Confronted with this sudden emergency, the driver of the Boulerice car pulled it to its right to avoid the Ford automobile hitting it. Then a fireplug was so close the Boulerice car cut back to the left and went across the street and turned over in a ditch about 6 feet deep and five to six feet across the top. Considering plaintiff's evidence as we are required to do in considering a motion for judgment of nonsuit, it is our opinion, and we so hold, that plaintiff has adduced no evidence at all tending to show that Cecelia W. Boulerice was guilty of careless and reckless driving in violation of G.S. § 20-140. State v. Simmons, 240 N.C. 780, 83 S.E.2d 904. There is no evidence offered by defendants Hare that plaintiff can call to her aid tending to show that Cecelia W. Boulerice was guilty of the careless and reckless driving of an automobile, in violation of G.S. § 20-140. The first issue submitted to the jury in the instant case is: Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendants Joseph R. Boulerice and Cecelia W. Boulerice, as alleged in the Complaint? And the second issue is: Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendants Robert E. Hare and William Leon Hare, as alleged in the Complaint? The court in its charge, inter alia, instructed the jury: Now, when you come to consider this first issue, and likewise the second one, which we will come to in order, we have to know what negligence is complained of, or wherein does the plaintiff contend that the defendants Hare were negligent. She says that the Hares were negligent in that the car driven by the younger Hare was driven carelessly and recklessly, and there is a statute prohibiting the careless and reckless operation of a car.    Immediately thereafter the court charged the jury as follows, which is assigned as error by the defendants Boulerice: The violation of this statute is negligence per se, that is negligence of itself, and if the proximate cause of injury, why then it is negligence which would entitle you to answer the first issue YES, if you find negligence and proximate cause arising from careless and reckless driving, by the greater weight of the evidence. Immediately after the foregoing portion of the charge, the court went to the second issue having to do with the negligence of defendants Hare and charged at considerable length on that issue. Immediately thereafter the court instructed the jury as follows, which is assigned as error by the defendants Boulerice: The plaintiff contends that Cecelia Boulerice drove the car of her husband on that occasion without due caution and circumspection, and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or persons on the highway. The court then again reverted in its charge to the first issue and charged the jury as follows, which the defendants Boulerice assign as error: Now, concluding that portion of the charge, gentlemen, if the plaintiff has satisfied you from the evidence and by its greater weight that Joseph R. Boulerice and Cecelia W. Boulerice, she driving his car, were negligent in any one or more of the particulars alleged, which I have called your attention to, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of her injury, then it would be your duty to answer that issue YES. Otherwise, you would answer it NO. It was prejudicial error to defendants Boulerice for the court to instruct the jury, inter alia, to the effect that if the jury found from the evidence and by its greater weight, the burden of proof being upon the plaintiff to so satisfy them, that Cecelia W. Boulerice drove her husband's automobile in a careless and reckless manner, in violation of G.S. § 20-140, that that would be negligence, and that if such negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries then the jury should answer the first issue Yes, otherwise No, because there is no evidence in the record to show that Cecelia W. Boulerice drove the automobile carelessly and recklessly, in violation of G.S. 20-140. White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510, 133 S.E.2d 132, and cases there cited; Windley v. Brock, 204 N.C. 357, 168 S.E. 204. Plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence in the case shows that Cecelia W. Boulerice, who was driving her husband's automobile, was faced with a sudden emergency when she entered the intersection of Fleetwood and Factory Streets, the emergency being caused by a car being driven into the intersection from Fleetwood Street. Defendants Boulerice assign as error the correctness of the parts of the charge as to sudden emergency. This assignment of error raises serious questions as to the correctness of that part of the charge. However, since they are entitled to a new trial for prejudicial error in the charge as above set forth, we do not deem it necessary to discuss this assignment of error, as the law in this jurisdiction is well settled as to the doctrine of sudden emergency, and when the case is tried again the court will probably correctly charge on the doctrine of sudden emergency. For error in the charge defendants Boulerice are entitled to a New Trial.