A consideration of the evidence appearing on this record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, leads us to the conclusion that judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.
The only allegation of negligence contained in the complaint is in the following language:
*599“That tbe defendant was negligent in that ... a heavy, iron object of the type commonly referred to as a dummy policeman was wrongfully, carelessly and negligently placed in the center of said intersection (Broad and Main) without lights or other means by which passing motorists could identify and avoid this obstruction to traffic, and in that the defendant wrongfully, carelessly and negligently permitted said, obstruction to remain in said condition and position for a period of approximately two weeks though well knowing, or in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence they should have known that such sign and obstruction in its continuous unlighted condition was a menace to motorists passing along this main artery of traffic.”
The rights of plaintiff and the liability of the defendant under this allegation of negligence are to be determined from the facts as they existed at the time of the accident. That the sign was or was not at the time adequately lighted — not how or by whom — is the material fact. If it was clearly visible to a motorist using Main Street at night, the collision must be attributed solely to the negligence of the driver as the proximate cause thereof. The failure of the city to light a sign which was already illuminated so as to be clearly visible cannot be held for actionable negligence.
All the evidence tends to show that the intersection and sign were lighted by a 250 watt street light and by electric lights at the Esso and Texaco stations, totaling several thousand candle power. “The dummy policeman” was “lit up pretty fair. You could see the marker a pretty good ways.” The intersection was “brilliantly lighted.” “It (the marker) was standing in a brilliantly lighted section at night.” So the witnesses for plaintiff testified.
It is true that Hopkins testified that he did not and could not see it although he was keeping a lookout. Even so, it was there to be seen but he would not see. Powers v. Sternberg, 213 N. C., 41, 195 S. E., 88. At least plaintiff has failed to produce evidence tending to show that any act or omission of the defendant caused him to fail to see.
The plaintiff suggests that a car approaching the intersection at right angles on Broad Street caused Hopkins to veer to the left and strike the sign. Conceded, arguendo, this fact does not tend to show defendant maintained an unguarded and unlighted obstruction in its streets or that it failed to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.