TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Patterson v. Ritchie

Daisy McDonald Patterson, Administratrix of G. L. Patterson v. Mrs. M. F. Ritchie.

Patterson v. Ritchie, 164 S.E. 117 (N.C. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 18, 1932
Judges
CoNNOR
Citations
164 S.E. 117202 N.C. 7251932 N.C. LEXIS 203

Opinion of the Court — CoNNOR

CoNNOR, J.

Conceding without deciding that the family-purpose doctrine adopted in this State with respect to the use of automobiles (Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C., 759 , 158 S. E., 491 ) is applicable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered by plaintiff *727 fails to show that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant’s husband, as alleged in the complaint. For this reason, there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit made in apt time as provided by statute. C. S., 567.

All the evidence shows that defendant’s husband, driving the automobile in which plaintiff’s intestate was riding as his guest, on a State highway, in the midst of heavy traffic, was suddenly confronted by a situation, caused by the truck which was approaching him from the opposite direction, in which he was required to act quickly for the safety of himself and of Ms guest. Under the circumstances as shown by all the evidence, he was not negligent in swerving the automobile suddenly to his right, thus causing it to leave the hard surface and to run on the shoulder of the highway. The collision which occurred within a short distance of the automobile with the post which was standing beside the highway, was an accident, regrettable in its consequences not only to his guest but also to the driver. As the fatal injuries of his guest could not under the circumstances have been reasonably avoided, these injuries must be attributed to the unavoidable accident, and not to the negligence of defendant’s husband. Neither the defendant nor her husband, upon the evidence appearing in the record, can be held liable to the plaintiff in this action. The judgment is Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1932: 11935: 11954: 11957: 11959: 11960: 11963: 11964: 21966: 11970: 119322026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Forgy v. Schwartz136 S.E.2d 668 (N.C. 1964)
  2. Henderson v. Henderson80 S.E.2d 383 (N.C. 1954)
  3. Smith v. Pate97 S.E.2d 457 (N.C. 1957)
  4. Bondurant v. Mastin113 S.E.2d 292 (N.C. 1960)
  5. Williams v. Boulerice149 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. 1966)
  6. Crowe v. Crowe129 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Williams v. Standard Supply Co.312 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D.N.C. 1970)
  2. Williams v. Boulerice149 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. 1966)
  3. Forgy v. Schwartz136 S.E.2d 668 (N.C. 1964)
  4. Henry Dewitt Shank, Jr. v. Alec Baker, Administrator, C.T.A. Of the Estate of Chester Arthur Quick333 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1964)
  5. Crowe v. Crowe129 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. 1963)
  6. Bondurant v. Mastin113 S.E.2d 292 (N.C. 1960)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Grier v. Woodside, 158 S.E. 491 (N.C. 1931) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list