Court Opinion

ID: 9856645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:53:56.557504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:13.412628
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
concurring in result. I agree that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes the contributory negligence of plaintiff’s intestate. This bars recovery unless there is evidence sufficient to entitle plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of last clear chance. Since I find no evidence sufficient to warrant the submission of an issue as to last clear chance, I concur in the result.
My dissent is directed solely to this statement in the Court’s opinion: “Moreover, having decided that plaintiff’s intestate was negligent as a matter of law, the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable.” Similar statements appear in opinions in prior cases. However, in my view, such statements do not express accurately the intended meaning. In any event, they do not express accurately the correct legal principle.
I understand the oft-used expression, “guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law,” means simply that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes plaintiff’s contributory negligence. But the legal significance of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, whether it appears as a matter of law from the evidence most favorable to plaintiff or is determined by a jury on conflicting evidence, is the same.
*686The doctrine of last clear chance presupposes the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Barnes v. Horney, 247 N.C. 495, 101 S.E. 2d 315; Graham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 240 N.C. 338, 82 S.E. 2d 346; Wade v. Sausage Co., 239 N.C. 524, 80 S.E. 2d 150, and cases cited.
“The doctrine of last clear chance, otherwise known as the doctrine of discovered peril, is accepted law in this State. It is this: The contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery where it is made to appear that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided the injurious consequences to the plaintiff, notwithstanding plaintiff’s negligence; that is, that by the exercise of reasonable care defendant might have discovered the perilous position of the party injured or killed and have avoided the injury, but failed to do so.” Ingram v. Smoky Mountain Stages, Inc., 225 N.C. 444, 447, 35 S.E. 2d 337, and cases cited; Wade v. Sausage Co., supra, and cases cited.
“To sustain the plea (of last clear chance) it must be made to appear that (1) plaintiff by his own negligence placed himself in a dangerous situation; (2) the defendant saw, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, the perilous position of plaintiff, (3) in time to avoid injuring him; and (4) notwithstanding such notice of imminent peril negligently failed or refused to use every reasonable means at his command to avoid the impending injury, (5)' as a result of which plaintiff was in fact injured.” Ingram v. Smoky Mountain Stages, Inc., supra.
My view is well expressed in this statement: “The doctrine of last clear chance does not arise until it appears that the injured person has been guilty of contributory negligence, and no issue with respect thereto must be submitted to the jury unless there is evidence to support it.” Irby v. R. R., 246 N.C. 384, 390, 98 S.E. 2d 349.
Whether the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable does not depend upon whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes the contributory negligence of his intestate. The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable here because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant saw or should have seen the perilous position in which plaintiff’s intestate had, by his own negligence, placed himself, in time to avoid injuring him and under such circumstances failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the impending injury.
Higgins and Rodman, JJ., join in this opinion.