We find no error in the trial of this action. It was competent for plaintiff’s husband to testify, from his observation, both as to fact and as to the extent of her suffering. The jury was properly and correctly instructed as to the principles of law discussed and applied in Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761, relative to the negligence of a third party which insulates the negligence of the defendant, and is, therefore, the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. There was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was the negligence of the driver of the truck, for which defendant was liable on the principle of respondeat superior.
There was evidence tending to show that the driver of the automobile, in which plaintiff was riding, was confronted by a sudden peril caused by the negligence of the driver of defendant’s truck. It is doubtful whether there was evidence tending to show that he acted otherwise than as a prudent man under the circumstances, which constituted an emergency. In Hinton v. R. R., 172 N. C., 587, 90 S. E., 756, it is said: “It is well understood that a person in the presence of an emergency is not usually held to the same deliberation or circumspect care as in ordinary conditions.” If the conduct of the driver of the automobile was not such negligence as would bar his recovery, it is manifest that such conduct was not negligence insulating the negligence of the defendant, and therefore relieving defendant of liability to the plaintiff in this action, because its negligence was not the proximate cause of her injuries. The judgment is affirmed. We find