Court Opinion

ID: 9808428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:37:56.200883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:22.222349
License: Public Domain

Stacy, 0. J.,
concurring: When an automobile is hit by or collides
with a train at a grade crossing, the law makes a distinction between the causal negligence of the driver of the automobile which will bar a recovery in an action brought against the railroad by the driver and the negligence on his part which will bar a recovery in an action brought against the railroad by a guest in the automobile who exercises no control over the driver. Baker v. R. R., 205 N. C., 329, 171 S. E., 342.
In the first case, contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the automobile will suffice to bar a recovery in an action brought by him. McCrimmon v. Powell, 221 N. C., 216, 19 S. E. (2d), 880; Godwin v. R. R., 220 N. C., 281, 17 S. E. (2d), 137; Miller v. R. R., 220 N. C., 562, 18 S. E. (2d), 232.
In the second, the negligence on the part of the driver which will defeat a recovery in an action brought against the railroad by a guest in the automobile who exercises no control over the driver, must do more than contribute to the injury; it must be the real efficient cause, or the sole proximate cause of the guest’s injury. Quinn v. R. R., 213 N. C., 48, 195 S. E., 85; Marvell v. Wilmington, 214 N. C., 608, 200 S. E., 367; Campbell v. R. R., 201 N. C., 102, 159 S. E., 327; Dickey v. R. R., 196 N. C., 726, 147 S. E., 15; Earwood v. R. R., 192 N. C., 27, 133 S. E., 180; Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N. C., 611, 83 S. E., 814.
It is true, in Herman v. R. R., 197 N. C., 718, 150 S. E., 361, it was said “the negligence of the driver of the automobile is so palpable and, gross, as shown by plaintiff’s own witnesses, as to render his negligence the sole proximate cause of the injury.” The Court was there speaking to a nonsuit and of the palpable and gross negligence of the driver appearing on the record which rendered his negligence “the sole proximate cause of the injury.” This was not to say, however, that the negligence of the driver must be “palpable and gross.” It is enough in such case to defeat a recovery, if the negligence of the driver be the sole proximate cause of the guest’s injury. Montgomery v. Blades, 222 N. C., 463; Chinnis v. R. R., 219 N. C., 528, 14 S. E. (2d), 500; Powers v. Sternberg, 213 N. C., 41, 195 S. E., 88; Smith v. Sink, 211 N. C., 725, 192 S. E., 108.
An instruction similar to the one here complained of was held for error in Quinn v. R. R., supra. A like holding wordd seem to be in order here.
WiNBORNE, J., joins in this opinion.