Opinion ID: 1340364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mitchell's appeal

Text: Mitchell's only assignment of error is directed to the court's denial of his motions for judgment of nonsuit. When plaintiff offered her evidence and rested, Mitchell moved for judgment of nonsuit; and, when the court refused his said motion, Mitchell excepted to the court's ruling and announced that he did not choose to introduce evidence. G.S. § 1-183. He contends he did not offer evidence or otherwise waive his exception to said ruling. Unquestionably, testimony subsequently offered by Jarrett and by plaintiff includes evidence favorable to plaintiff, Mitchell contends this evidence may not be considered, that the question as to nonsuit is whether the evidence offered by plaintiff before she (originally) rested her case was sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff was injured by his (Mitchell's) actionable negligence. As in Van Landingham v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 207 N.C. 355, 177 S.E. 126, where a similar question was raised, we find it unnecessary on this record to pass upon Mitchell's said contention. Mitchell contends his said motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed because the evidence was insufficient to support plaintiff's allegations as to his (Mitchell's) actionable negligence. According to plaintiff's testimony, Jarrett had been following the Mitchell truck about a mile or half a mile, stayed within four or five feet of it, both vehicles proceeding north in the east traffic lane at a speed of 55 miles per hour when they reached and entered the passing zone. There is merit in Mitchell's contention that G.S. § 20-151 is not applicable to the factual situation presented by plaintiff's evidence. Dreher v. Divine, 192 N.C. 325, 135 S.E. 29, 47 A.L.R. 696. Moreover, as discussed in connection with Jarrett's appeal, according to plaintiff's allegations and testimony, the collision was proximately caused by the act of each defendant in turning from a direct line of traffic, not because Jarrett or Mitchell was driving at excessive speed. Too, while plaintiff, as set forth in the statement of facts, alleged each defendant violated the provisions of the reckless driving statute, G.S. § 20-140, she did not indicate the conduct she considered reckless driving. In this connection, see Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 126 S.E.2d 62. Plaintiff did allege Mitchell failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to observe the traffic conditions then and there existing upon said highway. This allegation must be considered in relation to plaintiff's basic factual allegation, namely, as the defendant Jarrett attempted to pull around the defendant Mitchell, the defendant Mitchell also pulled his truck to the left of the center of the highway, at which time the right front of the defendant Jarrett's automobile collided with the left rear side of the defendant Mitchell's truck. According to plaintiff's evidence, there was, within the passing zone, a line of traffic, other traffic ahead of the pickup truck. Plaintiff testified (1) that she saw no signal given by Mitchell for a change of lane, and (2) that the rear bumper of the pickup truck caught the right front fender of Jarrett's car. True, plaintiff testified that Jarrett blew his horn just as he pulled out to pass the pickup truck. Moreover, the collision occurred in a zone where it might be reasonably anticipated that passing would be attempted. The provisions of G.S. § 20-154 are pertinent to the basic factual situation alleged by plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff's testimony, when considered in the light most favorable to her, was sufficient to support findings that Mitchell, in violation of G.S. § 20-154, turned from a direct line of travel (1) without seeing that such movement could be made in safety, and (2) without giving the required signal of his intention to do so. True, plaintiff's allegations contain no reference to G.S. § 20-154. Nor does plaintiff allege Mitchell failed to signal his intention to turn from his direct line of travel. Even so, without reference to statutory provisions, plaintiff's allegations, as indicated above, to the effect that Mitchell, without keeping a proper lookout and without observing traffic conditions then and there existing upon the highway, drove his truck to the left of the center of the highway as Jarrett was attempting to pull around him, and the evidence in support thereof, were sufficient to require submission of an issue as to Mitchell's actionable negligence and to support a jury finding in favor of plaintiff. We are of opinion, and so decide, that the evidence offered by plaintiff before she (originally) rested her case was sufficient to withstand Mitchell's motion for judgment of nonsuit. Since Mitchell does not assign error in any other respect, the verdict and judgment, as between plaintiff and defendant Mitchell, will not be disturbed.