Court Opinion

ID: 9591291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:03:30.098499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:09.356806
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
dissenting.
This is an unusual case. While I agree that the forecast of evidence shows that plaintiff Claude Meadows may have been contributorily negligent, I cannot agree that the forecast conclusively established that fact. The forecast shows that Meadows, a pedestrian, in an intoxicated condition, was attempting to cross a highway after dark, and that defendant did not see Meadows until moments (or a few seconds) before he struck Meadows near the center of defendant’s lane of travel.
The issue of last clear chance is also of doubtful resolution. While it is clear that plaintiff has not alleged last clear chance, the forecast of evidence would tend to establish a last clear chance situation — ie., an intoxicated pedestrian in a position of peril (crossing a highway after dark) who was not seen by defendant in time to avoid hitting Meadows, and that if defendant had been keeping a proper lookout, he reasonably could have seen Meadows in time to avoid him. In his deposition in support of his summary judgment motion, defendant testified that Meadows was in the road in defendant’s lane of travel, back side to defendant, *92or at an angle to defendant, that defendant had entered the highway only seconds before reaching Meadows, and that he saw Meadows “momentarily” before striking him. An affidavit of defendant’s wife, who was a passenger in defendant’s car, tended to substantiate defendant’s version of the accident. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, presented the affidavit of a motorist who passed Meadows only seconds before defendant struck Meadows. In that affidavit, the other motorist stated that he was traveling at about the same speed as defendant, saw Meadows in the highway, crossing the highway, and was able to avoid striking him. Had such evidence been presented at trial, I am persuaded that pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs would have been entitled to have the issue of last clear chance presented to the jury.
For the reason stated, I must respectfully dissent and vote to reverse entry of summary judgment for defendant.