Court Opinion

ID: 9811158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:11:34.031387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:29.377959
License: Public Domain

WiNbokete, J.,
dissenting: I am unable to agree that error prejudicial to defendants is not made to appear in the record on this appeal, particularly the exceptions (1) to denial of motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit and for directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence, and (2) to admission of evidence to which Exception 1 relates.
In the first place, the evidence, even the testimony of plaintiff himself, as I read it, shows unmistakably that he was contributorily negligent in respect to the injury of which he complains, that is, that plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of his injury. Bus Co. v. Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E. 2d 623; Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251; Riggs v. Oil Corp., 228 N.C. 774, 47 S.E. 2d 254; McKinnon v. Motor Lines, 228 N.C. 132, 44 S.E. 2d 735; Austin v. Overton, 222 N.C. 89, 21 S.E. 2d 887.
All the evidence shows that the collision between plaintiff’s automobile and the tractor of the corporate defendant’s tractor-trailer-truck actually occurred on plaintiff’s left, and on defendant’s right side of the center line of the road. This constitutes a violation by plaintiff of the statute, G.S. 20-148, requiring that “Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite direction shall pass each other to the right, each giving to the other at least one-half of the main traveled portion of the roadway as nearly as possible.” And all the evidence shows that the point of impact between the two vehicles was on the front of plaintiff’s automobile and the front of the tractor of defendant’s tractor-trailer-truck. Plaintiff testified, “The front part of the truck which I struck and which was in collision with me was 19 inches across the center line.” P. 28 of the record. And again he says, “The actual parts of the two cars when they came together collided on 19 inches across from my side of the road.” P. 28. And plaintiff’s witness Underwood testified: “At the time of the collision the tractor part was on the right side of the line. I mean ... of the white line of the highway.” P. 46 of the record. And again he says: “Mr. Winfield didn’t hit the trailer. The part that Mr. Winfield hit of the truck and tractor was the front of the tractor or truck, and that was on its right side of the road,- — well over to the right. As he was on the right side of the road when the collision occurred, the wheel on Mr. Winfield’s car that struck was on the left side of that center line.” - And plaintiff says further in his testimony, “When the car started skidding, I of course *402had my hands on the wheel. It might have been that the brakes of the left wheel applied just a little harder than it did on the right, and that pulled the car that way. I guess I could have turned it back to my right.” P. 34. To fail to turn to the right when plaintiff could and should have so turned, was negligence on his part which necessarily contributed to the injury. This is plaintiff’s own estimate of the sithation. If he says he could have turned to the right, how can we say it was not his duty to do so?
Moreover, plaintiff’s own testimony is full of evidence of his violation of the statute G.S. 20-141 as to speed restrictions. That statute provides that “No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed that is greater than is reasonable and prudent under conditions then existing.” And while this statute further provides that “Where no special hazard exists” certain speed limits shall be lawful, it provides that “the fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing prima facie limits does not relieve the driver of the duty to decrease speed . . . when special hazard exists with respect to ... or by reason of weather or highway conditions . . .” And the statute further provides that “It shall be unlawful to violate any provision of this section . . .”
All the evidence shows that weather and road conditions at the time of and immediately before the collision constituted a special hazard. Plaintiff’s evidence describes the condition of the road and of the weather. Plaintiff testified: “The pavement was slightly damp as result of the fog . . . the top of the black asphalt was damp just a little.” Record P. 18. The plaintiff’s witness Underwood testified: “I think the pavement was very damp from the fog.” P. 47. Moreover, as to the fog, plaintiff testified, “The fog at that particular point immediately before the collision was as heavy as I ever remember traveling in ... As I approached this point where the collision occurred the fog was very heavy.” P. 18. And again plaintiff testified : “I would say I could see approximately 100 feet in front of me above 6 feet . . . I’d say I could see where I was around 100 feet. The fog was heavy above the 6-foot line hut exceptionally heavy down near the ground . . .” P. 25. “The fog-kept me from seeing very far.” P. 26.
Then the record shows these questions and answers :
“Q. How far could you see ahead ?
“A. You mean at the time the accident happened ?
“Q. Just before the accident ?
“A. You couldn’t see over 20 feet. There were spots down the road where the fog-was heavy in one spot.
“Q. You could see 125 feet away?
“A. I would say that was the maximum.” P. 26.
*403• And, continuing, “I would say that the particular stretch of road I hadn’t been driving under those conditions more than 600 or 700 feet or possibly 1,000 feet. The fog happened to be heavier than at other spots.” P. 26.
And plaintiff’s witness Underwood testified: “As I drove along Highway #70, approaching the place where this automobile collision occurred the weather was very foggy. It was foggy to the extent of making it difficult to drive. I spoke of it to the man that was with me.” P. 45.
Under these conditions plaintiff testified: “I was driving my car between 30 and 35 miles an hour immediately before this impact.” P. 18. And again plaintiff says: “My highest estimate would not exceed 35 miles an hour.” P. 25. And, again, “My speed that morning from Raleigh on was about 35 miles an hour.” P. 26.
At the rate of 30 miles per hour, plaintiff would have been traveling 44 feet per second. And at 35 miles per hour, he would have traveled approximately 51 feet per second.
And it is significant to note that the collision did not occur at or on a curve. Plaintiff himself says, “I came around a flight curve to my right, but that curve was 250 or 300 feet from where this accident occurred.” P. 18. “I was 200 feet beyond the curve before I saw this truck. The truck was approximately 100 feet in front of me when I saw it.” P. 25.
And this further testimony of plaintiff is significant of negligence on his part, — contributing to his injury. He testified, “When I saw this truck first ... I immediately applied the brakes to the Chevrolet . . .” P. 19. And, again, “From the time I applied my brakes and went 3 or 4 or 5 feet straight and then started skidding to the left, I won’t say it was over 10 feet altogether. The whole business was not over 10 feet.” P. 31.
This testimony means either one of two things. If plaintiff applied his brakes as he said he did, the truck could not have been 100 feet away when he saw it, and he was outrunning his lights. If, on the other hand, the truck was 100 feet away when plaintiff saw it, it is manifest that he delayed too long in applying the brakes, for he says he only skidded 10 feet. Thus taking either horn of the dilemma, he proves himself to be contributorily negligent.
For these reasons it is obvious on the record that one of the proximate causes of the injury to plaintiff was his own negligence, either in driving at excessive speed and recklessly under the conditions existing or in steering his car in the wrong direction, or in both respects.
And, in the second place, there is error in admission of evidence to which Exception 1 relates. Plaintiff was permitted, over objection by corporate defendant, to testify that “As spon as I came to Mr. Underwood *404and Mr. Smith were at my ear and I remember they wanted to help me and the first words I remember was Mr. Smith telling me not to worry about the situation that they expected to take care of it.” This admission of this statement is manifestly error, and of the most prejudicial character.
“It is the rule with us that what an agent or employee says relative to an act presently being done by him within the scope of his agency or employment, is admissible as a part of the res gesta, and may be offered in evidence, either for or against the principal or employer, but what the agent or employee says afterwards, and merely narrative of a past occurrence, though his agency or employment may continue as to other matters, or generally, is only hearsay and is not competent as against the principal or employer.” Hubbard v. R. R., 203 N.C. 675, 166 S.E. 802.
Indeed, as stated by Stansbury on N. C. Evidence, Sec. 169, page 365, “It is often said that a statement accompanying an act is admissible either for or against the principal, but this would seem to be true only when the statement characterizes or qualifies the act.”
Moreover, “In the absence of express orders to do an act, in order to render the master liable, the act must not only be one that pertains to the business, but must also be fairly within the scope of the authority conferred by the employment.” See Parrish v. Mfg. Co., 211 N.C. 7, 188 S.E. 817.
My vote is for a nonsuit. Failing in this, I vote for a new trial.
BaeNHJXI., J., concurs in dissent.