Automobiles 13, 41j — While the mere skidding of a motor vehicle does not imply negligence, where there is evidence that the driver was passing a preceding car at almost the maximum lawful speed on wet pavement and that she thought she saw a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction move out of line, causing her to cut more quickly and at a sharper angle to her right, with positive evidence that no vehicle was approaching out of line, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury as to whether the skidding of the vehicle and subsequent injuries to plaintiff passenger were caused by negligence.
HIGGINS, J.
The defendant, by Assignment of Error No. 1, presents the question whether the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. The defendant contends the evidence shows she was observing the speed limit; that in attempting to pass the way was clear for her to do so; but in moving the vehicle back to her side of the road after passing, the Austin-Healy skidded on the wet road surface; that the evidence is insufficient to permit an inference of driver negligence. She contends the skidding of the vehicle resulted from the condition of the road and not from any fault on her part; hence not enough to go to the jury. Fox v. Hollar, 257 N.C. 65, 125 S.E.2d 334; Wise v. Lodge, 247 N.C. 250, 100 S.E.2d 677; Clodfelter v. Wells, 212 N.C. 823, 195 S.E. 11.
The evidence disclosed the road was wet and slippery. The vehicle skidded and wrecked. The plaintiff was injured. In addition, the evidence permits these inferences: The defendant had been drinking beer by her own admission. In passing the vehicle in front, and with knowledge of the slippery condition of the road, nevertheless she drove near the maximum lawful speed. She thought she saw an approaching vehicle move out of line, causing her to cut more quickly and at a sharper angle to heir right. On the wet road surface the vehicle skidded and wrecked, causing the injury. Evidence is positive that no vehicle approached out of line. The acceleration of the vehicle awakened the plaintiff who was asleep beside the driver. Actually, therefore, more appears than a skidding vehicle. The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury that driver negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and injury.
The evidence in this case falls in the category considered in Durham v. Trucking Co., 247 N.C. 204, 100 S.E.2d 348. "While the mere skidding of a motor vehicle does not imply negligence (Mitchell v. Melts, 220 N.C. 793, 18 S.E.2d 406) nevertheless, skidding may be caused or accompanied by negligence on which liability may be predicated. Accordingly, skidding may form the basis of a recovery where it results from some fault of the operator amounting to negligence on his part." (citing many cases).
Defendant's Assignment of Error No. 1 is; not sustained.
We have examined the other assignments relating to the admissibility of evidence and to the judge's charge. The case appears to have been tried in accord with the authoritative cases decided by this Court. The other assignments likewise are not sustained by the record.
No error.