Chaffin v. Brame
233 N.C. 377, 64 S.E.2d 276 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to stop within the range of their headlights when an obstruction is unforeseeable due to its unlit and illegal placement, and the driver's vision is simultaneously impaired by the negligence of another motorist. The controlling standard is what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- At 9 p.m. on March 8, 1950, the plaintiff was driving his Ford car southward on Route 18 in Wilkes County, North Carolina.
- The defendant's truck was parked on the right side of the highway without any lights or warning signals, blocking the entire right traffic lane.
- As the plaintiff approached, he encountered an oncoming passenger car driven by Garland, which was displaying glaring and undimmed headlights.
- The plaintiff was partially blinded by Garland's headlights, so he substantially reduced his speed and blinked his own lights to signal Garland.
- Garland failed to dim his headlights, and due to the combination of the blinding lights and the unlit truck, the plaintiff could not see the truck until his car was 30 feet away.
- The plaintiff attempted to swerve but the right side of his car struck the rear of the defendant's truck.
- At the moment of impact, the plaintiff's speed did not exceed 20 miles per hour.
- Shortly after the accident, the defendant admitted that his negligence caused the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court to recover for damages to his vehicle.
- After all evidence was presented at trial, the defendant moved for a compulsory nonsuit, arguing the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion for nonsuit.
- After a verdict was returned, the trial court permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform to the evidence.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to this court, assigning as error the denial of his nonsuit motion and the allowance of the post-verdict amendment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's failure to stop within the range of their headlights constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law when they are partially blinded by the glaring headlights of an oncoming car and collide with an unlit truck illegally parked on the highway?
Opinions:
Majority - Ervin, J.
No. A driver's failure to stop within the range of their headlights does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law under these circumstances. The long-standing rule that it is negligent to 'out-drive one's headlights' is not an inflexible, mechanical rule, but rather an application of the fundamental principle of exercising ordinary care. The true test is what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances. A motorist is not required to be infallible, nor are they bound to anticipate the negligent or illegal acts of others. The plaintiff had the right to assume that other vehicles would be properly lit and that oncoming drivers would dim their headlights as required by law. When confronted with the blinding lights, the plaintiff reduced his speed and acted with caution; the unlit, illegally parked truck was not a danger he could have reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the question of whether the plaintiff's conduct met the standard of a reasonably prudent person is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the traditional, rigid 'range of lights' rule for contributory negligence. By rejecting a per se negligence standard, the court moves towards a more flexible 'reasonably prudent person' test that considers the totality of the circumstances. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to win motions for compulsory nonsuit or summary judgment in cases where a plaintiff's vision was impaired by the unexpected, negligent acts of a third party. The ruling emphasizes that foreseeability is a key component of a driver's duty of care, effectively shifting many of these determinations from the judge to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Chaffin v. Brame