Court Opinion

ID: 9577408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:34:37.636635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:33.048289
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
concurring. Bearing in mind, the evidence tending to show notice to Lona Thompson that the brakes were faulty -and in need of -prompt repair, I agree that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to support a finding that Lona Thompson was negligent in the operation of the Buick; and I agree that the evidence does not show contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law.
*673Whether defendant is liable for Lona Thompson’s negligence does not, in my opinion, depend upon G.S. 20-71.1. There is positive evidence which, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, tends to show (1) that Lona Thompson was in fact acting as agent of defendant and within the scope of the agency, and (2) that,, since the Buick was being driven by Lona Thompson to defendant’s place of business to be fixed for plaintiff’s use and benefit, plaintiff was a passenger therein with the express or implied consent of defendant.
Does G.S. 20-71.1 make proof of ownership, standing alone, prima fade evidence that a passenger in an absent defendant’s car is riding therein with such defendant’s express or implied consent? I would expressly reserve this question for consideration in a case where determination thereof is necessary to decision.
RodmaN AND Moore, J.J., concur in concurring opinion.