Opinion
J. Grover Lee, Jas. R. Patton, R. M. Gantt, all of Durham, for plaintiff.
Basil M. Watkins, and Charles W. White, Durham, for defendants, petitioners.
WINBORNE and ERVIN, Justices.
The case is reported in 232 N.C. 314, 59 S.E.2d 817, 818.
The burden of the petition to rehear is that the court misconstrued the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and by reason thereof erroneously adjudged that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. A painstaking examination of the record reveals two inaccuracies in an otherwise perfect recapitulation of the testimony. The court states that the plaintiff testified 'that he could see down highway 54 in a westerly direction 'a couple hundred yards", whereas he deposed as follows: 'I could see down Highway 54 in a westerly direction that night between 175 and 200 feet. I could see a couple of hundred yards east.' The court states that the plaintiff's witness, R. H. Morgan, Jr., testified, in substance, that the hedge bordered Alston Avenue Road, whereas he deposed, in effect, that the hedge was parallel to Highway 54.
These inadvertencies do not impair the validity of the decision in any way. When the testimony in the record is appraised in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it warrants these inferences: The plaintiff brought his automobile to a complete stop on Alston Avenue Road before entering its intersection with Highway 54 in obedience to the stop sign. The range of his vision along Highway 54 was 175 or 200 feet to the west, and 'a couple of hundred yards' to the east. He looked along Highway No. 54 in both directions, observed that no motor vehicle was approaching the intersection within the range of his vision, ascertained that he could cross the intersection without danger of collision with any motor vehicle moving along Highway 54 at a lawful rate of speed, put his automobile in motion, and undertook to cross the intersection. After the automobile of the plaintiff had completely entered the intersection, the motor vehicle of the defendants hove into sight from the west moving along Highway 54 at a speed 'between 75 and 85 miles per hour,' proceeded onto the intersection at unabated speed, and crashed into the automobile of the plaintiff, which has virtually vacated the portion of the intersection appropriated by law for travel in the direction in which the defendants were proceeding.
This being true, the court rightly adjudged that the evidence at the trial was sufficient to sustain a finding that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. Michie: The Law of Automobiles, (3rd Ed.), section 121; 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 362.
For these reasons, the petition to rehear is denied.