Ervin v. Cannon Mills Co.

Citations: 64 S.E.2d 431; 233 N.C. 415Docket: 383

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina; April 10, 1951; North Carolina; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed an appeal by defendants Cannon Mills Company and Allen, following their motion for judgment of nonsuit, which was denied by the lower court. The court emphasized that the evidence must be reviewed favorably for the plaintiff, with all reasonable inferences drawn in their favor. The facts indicated that on October 4, 1946, Allen, driving a truck for Cannon Mills, intended to make a left turn into the company's plant while traveling on a straight, dry, 30-foot wide street in Concord. The truck was moving at 20-25 mph and slowed down to turn left. Allen signaled the turn by extending his arm but retracted it to steer with both hands as he turned. The motorcycle, operated by the plaintiff's intestate, was traveling behind the truck and collided with it as the truck neared the entrance to the driveway. The impact occurred two to five feet from the curb, resulting in severe injuries to the motorcyclist, who died five days later. Evidence suggested that the motorcycle had traveled diagonally across the street to the point of impact, and Allen admitted he did not check his rearview mirror before turning, only looking eastward prior to the maneuver. The case highlights issues of negligence and the duty of care in vehicle operation.

Prior to the collision, a motorcycle briefly stopped at a railroad crossing and was then seen moving west without any unusual behavior. The applicable statute requires motor vehicle drivers to ensure their movements can be made safely and to signal their intentions clearly, particularly when turning left. In this case, the truck driver allegedly failed to signal properly while making a left turn, as he only extended his hand when 40 to 50 feet from the driveway but withdrew it before completing the turn. This action may not have provided sufficient warning to other drivers. The statute mandates that signals must be given from the left side of the vehicle within the last 50 feet traveled, and a failure to do so can be considered negligence. 

Moreover, the driver’s testimony indicated he did not approach the intersection correctly, as he did not pass to the right of the mill driveway's centerline. Although there is evidence of non-compliance with the statute, the court noted that the requirement to signal does not absolve the driver from the common law duty to exercise due care. The defendants were obligated to operate their truck with due care to prevent injury to others using the street. The failure to adhere to these duties can be actionable if it is shown to be the proximate cause of an injury. Evidence indicates the motorcycle was traveling in the same direction as the truck at the time of the incident.

The defendants' truck had an outside rear view mirror, which could have alerted the driver to the presence of a following vehicle, necessitating caution while preparing to turn left. A driver intending to make a left turn has a legal duty to maintain a proper lookout, signal intentions clearly, and control the vehicle to prevent accidents. Compliance with hand signal requirements does not absolve the driver of the responsibility to observe traffic conditions behind them. A mere signal, especially if quickly withdrawn without checking for traffic, does not meet the full duty of care expected. The law mandates that drivers must do everything reasonable to avoid harming others, especially if they can see someone in danger. 

Drivers are held to the standard of seeing what they should have seen, and circumstances may require greater care than statutory minimums. The duty to signal is distinct from the obligation to ensure that a turn can be made safely; failing to do so constitutes a breach of duty. Statutory signals are considered the minimum required, and additional actions may be necessary based on surrounding conditions to prevent collisions. A driver must exercise reasonable care to ensure a safe turn and signal appropriately to any affected vehicles well in advance of the maneuver.

A motorist is deemed negligent as a matter of law under G.S. 20-154 if they fail to follow statutory precautions when changing lanes, making any resulting negligence actionable if it leads to injury to another party. The defendants argue for reversal based solely on a lack of evidence of their own negligence, while the issue of the plaintiff's intestate's contributory negligence is not addressed. Evidence did not indicate the motorcycle's speed, but one witness observed its operation as normal. The defendant claimed no signal was given by the motorcycle rider; however, the relevant statute requiring a horn signal does not apply in a business district. The motorcycle rider appeared to avoid the truck, applying brakes and colliding after a distance of 30 feet. Proximate cause is typically a jury question based on the circumstances, and only in cases of admitted facts with a single inference can a court determine proximate cause. The evidence did not support a conclusion of contributory negligence by the plaintiff's intestate that would warrant a nonsuit. A cited case was found to be distinguishable from the current facts. The evidence, viewed favorably for the plaintiff, was sufficient for jury consideration, and the trial court's denial of the nonsuit motion was appropriate. It is assumed that the jury was properly instructed on applicable legal principles, and the trial did not reveal any errors.