Court Opinion

ID: 9586421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:10:34.287324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:09.648270
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting: I agree fully, for reasons stated in the concurring (in result) opinion in Arvin v. McClintock, 253 N.C. 679, 118 S.E. 2d 129, and in the Court’s opinion in this cause, that the doctrine of last clear chance is equally available to an injured person without regard to whether contributory negligence appears as a matter of law or is determined by a jury on conflicting evidence.
Ordinarily, the doctrine of last clear chance applies when, in a factual situation created by the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, the defendant, by the exercise of due care under the circumstances then existing, could have avoided injury to the plaintiff but failed to do so. Here, plaintiff asserts the alleged negligent action of defendant, after plaintiff’s intestate and defendant were both fully aware of the hazardous position of plaintiff’s intestate, proximately caused the injury and death of plaintiff’s intestate.
It is conceded defendant was negligent in operating the truck while plaintiff’s intestate was sitting on the right front fender thereof, and that riding on the truck in that position constituted (contributory) negligence on the part of plaintiff’s intestate. However, both men were fully aware of the purpose of this awkward maneuver and voluntarily accepted the ordinary risks incident thereto. Plaintiff cannot complain in respect of injury to her intestate resulting naturally in the course of his travel in this precarious position, for example, by slipping or falling in the normal course of travel. In my view, defendant would be liable if he, in the light of known hazardous conditions, increased the hazards to which plaintiff’s intestate was exposed by additional positive acts of negligence and thereby proximately caused the death of plaintiff’s intestate.
Although a borderline case, in my opinion the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, tends to show defendant, when the station wagon moved ahead under its own power, failed to exercise due care under the circumstances in that he first put on brakes abruptly, thereby causing plaintiff’s intestate to fall forward from the fender of the truck, and thereafter eased or released his brakes to such extent that the truck struck plaintiff’s *16intestate after he had fallen. For these reasons, I vote to reverse the judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
Shaep, J., joins in dissenting opinion.