(Filed 16 October 1963.)
Torts § 6—
Where tile jury finds that the individual defendant was not guilty of negligence in connection with the accident in suit, judgment is properly entered 'dismissing the action ias .to the individual .defendant, as to the corporate defendant sought to he held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and also as to the defendants joined for contribution.
Appeal by plaintiff from Moms, J., May, 1963 Term, LeNOIR Superior Court.
Plaintiff Gladys Johnson Lee instituted this .civil action against Gordon B. Hoiho and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., for damages, alleging the plaintiff w.as injured while -riding as a passenger in a Buick automobile owned by Paul S. Lee and operated by Gladys S. Bennett. The injury grew -out of an automobile collision involving three vehicles near Raeford. One of the vehicles was a Ford owned by the defendant Avis Rent-A-Ga-r-System, Inc., and operated by the defendant Gordon B. Hohn. The third vehicle involved was operated by John C. Panckey. Upon motion of the original defendant Hohn, John S. Panckey and Paul S. Lee were made additional parties defendant against whom the original defendant Hohn alleged a cross action for ‘Contribution.
After pleadings were filed on behalf of all parties, the court heard evidence presented by the plaintiff and by the -original defendant Gordon B. Hohn. At the conclusion of all the evidence the defendants entered motions for nonsuit which the court denied. The jury found that Gordon B. Hohn was not guilty of negligence in connection with the accident. Upon the verdict, judgment was entered dismissing the action as to all defendants. The plaintiff appealed.
Lamar Jones for plaintiff appellant.
Whitaker & Jeffress, Thomas H. Morris, Attorneys for Gordon B. Hohn, defendant appellee.
Per Curiam.
The jury found that Hohn, the -driver of the other original defendant’s Ford, was not guilty of negligence. That finding likewise exonerated the owner and the additional defendants whom Hohn had brougld in for purposes -of contribution. Error does not ap*352pear in the trial. Consequently, in the judgment dismissing the action ■as to- all .defendants, there is
No error.