Court Opinion

ID: 9811208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:12:57.144174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:43.154582
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: The evidence of contributory negligence on the instant record is not so clear as to bar a recovery as a matter of law. The action arises out of a smoky situation and the facts are of a similar hue. This makes it a matter for the twelve.
There is no difference in principle between this case and Meacham v. R. R., 213 N. C., 609, 197 S. E., 189, where the plaintiff’s vision was obscured by fog or mist.
The issue of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury, Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601, and it is only when the plaintiff “proves himself out of court,” Elder v. R. R., 194 N. C., 617, 140 S. E., 298, that it becomes exclusively a question of law. Godwin v. R. R., ante, 281.
When did the plaintiff lose the right to assume that others would observe the law of the road? Sebastian v. Motor Lines, 213 N. C., 770, 197 S. E., 539. This is the crux of the case.
My vote is for a reversal of the judgment of nonsuit.
DeviN, J., concurs in dissent.