Court Opinion

ID: 9844922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:11:47.095254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:47.306141
License: Public Domain

Higgins, J.,
dissenting. From the evidence, which is fully and fairly stated in the opinion, I draw inferences different from those expressed by the Chief Justice.
The evidence at the trial disclosed that Mr. Domey, the driver, and Mr. Lane were in the front seat of the Oldsmofoile, engaged in conversation. Their wives were in tire back seat, 'similarly occupied. The hard surface highway over which they were traveling was 18 feet wide, dry, and free of obstruction. If nothing appeared -in this case except the physical evidence of the wreck, I should be inclined *26to go along with the opinion on the ground that the cause of the wreck might 'have resulted from mechanical defects, a sudden seizure of the driver, or the vehicle might have been forced off the road by the negligence of some other traveler on the highway. But Mrs. Domey’s evidence tends to remove these contingencies.
The evidence is plenary that Mr. Dorney, driving downhill on an unobstructed highway, failed to make a curve to the left, ran off the road to the right, wrecked ithe vehicle, with the fatal result. The tire miajrks for 22 feet on the shoulder of the roadi, the imprint on the concrete abutment 'enclosing the steps, the position of the vehicle resting on 'its top on the other side of the river, radicate the driver lost control. The evidence permits the inference that the loss of control did not result from defects in 'the vehicle, incapacity of the driver, or intervening negligence of another traveler. According to Mrs. Dorney, “Pie (Mr. Dorney) was perfectly well and had no impairment in his health- — I was not conscious of 'anything unusual happening before this car was involved in this wreck- — I was not conscious of any swerve of the ear while it was on the paved portion of tire road.”
In the absence of any plausible explanation as to what caused .the wreck, we are left with the permissible inference that it resulted from the driver’s failure to use due care to beep his aiutomoibile under proper control, to keep a proper -lookout for anld observe the course and condition of -the highway. Failure to use due care is negligence.
“In the absence of obstructions, defeats -in the road o-r car or other supervening cause, the wreck of a car under the .circumstances disclosed (overturned on curve) readily warrants 'an inference of negligence in operation.” Etheridge v. Etheridge, 222 N.C. 616, 24 S.E. 2d 477; Tatem v. Tatem, 245 N.C. 587, 96 S.E. 2d 725; Hensley v. Harris, 242 N.C. 599, 89 S.E. 2d 155; Boone v. Matheny, 224 N.C. 250, 29 S.E. 2d 687.
The evidence, in my opinion, was sufficient to require its submission to the jury. I vote to reverse.
Bobbitt, J., concurs in dissent.