Culver v. LaRoach, 260 N.C. 579 (1963)

Nov. 27, 1963 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
260 N.C. 579


(Filed 27 November 1963.)

Automobiles § 41f—

Evidence tending to show that plaintiff stopped behind a preceding car, which had stopped for a stop light at an intersection, that defendant, who was following behind plaintiff’s car at a speed not exceeding ten miles per hour >and a distance of about thirty feet, applied his brakes but that his car skidded on the ice and snow down ap incline and bumped the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, inflicting no damage to defendant's car and insignificant damage to plaintiff’s vehicle, held, insufficient to ¡be submitted to the jury in plaintiff’s action to recover for personal injury.

Appeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., 29 April 1963 'Civil Session of Guilfoed (Greensboro Division).

Plaintiff 'instituted this action to recover far personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant.

On .the morning of 29 January 1962, the plaintiff was operating his 1955 Rambler station wagon in a northerly direction on North Eugene Street in the City oif Greensboro. The 'Street was slick with ice and snow, and sloped downhill to the north.

Plaintiff was operating his istation wagon about 1-% car length® behind a car in front of him. Defendant was following behind the plaintiff. The car in front of plaintiff strapped. Plaintiff ¡applied his fonakes and stopped. The defendant, who was proceeding behind plaintiff at a speed of not more than ten miles par Lour and at a distance of about 30 feat, applied his brake's and hils oar .slid down the incline and bumped the rear of plaintiff’s ¡station wagon. All three cars had stopped for a stop light at the intersection of North Eugene Street and Belle-rn-eade Street. The accident occurred about 100 to 150 feet north of the intersection of North Eugene and Bellemeade Streets.

It was agreed by the parties at the time that no damage ¡had been done to the defendant’s car and that the damage to the plaintiff’s station wagon was too insignificant to report.

At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit and -the motion was ¡allowed.

*580The p1air~tiff a.pp~a1's, .ais~signing eirr&r.

Hines & Dettor and Joseph A. Sansone for appellant.

Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Httnter for appellee.


A oa~efu1 review of the evidenice addueed .ini the trial ihelow leadis us to the conclusion that the evidence is insqifficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.

Ph~ judgme~at eairte~red below is