Court Opinion

ID: 9856229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:41:48.291276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:38.569172
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
concurring:
On cross-examination, plaintiff testified, without objection, he had been previously convicted of five charges of traffic violations. If objections had been interposed, this testimony would have been admissible for the purpose of impeachment, Ingle v. Transfer Corp., 271 N.C. 276, 156 S.E. 2d 265, and cases cited, but it would not have been admissible as substantive evidence, Mason v. Gilliken, 256 N.C. 527, 532, 124 S.E. 2d 537, 540, and cases cited.
Since the opinion of the Court treats the testimony relating to plaintiff’s convictions for unrelated traffic violations as substantive evidence, I deem it appropriate to emphasize that this testimony was admitted without objection.
Independent of the testimony relating to plaintiff’s convictions for unrelated traffic violations, I concur in the view that plaintiff’s evidence discloses contributory negligence as a matter of law.
SHARP, J., joins in this opinion.