Hughes Ex Rel. Hughes v. Vestal
264 N.C. 500, 142 S.E.2d 361, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1226 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Published tables and charts detailing average vehicle stopping distances are inadmissible hearsay and are not a proper subject of judicial notice to prove a vehicle's speed in a negligence action without proper authentication or expert testimony.
Facts:
- Defendant Donald Wayne Vestal parked his Ford car in front of a home.
- The plaintiff was driving an Oldsmobile in the same direction on the same road.
- The plaintiff's car collided with Vestal's parked vehicle.
- Plaintiff's vehicle left a total of 230 feet of tire marks on the road.
- The tire marks measured 145 feet before the point of collision and 85 feet from that point until the car came to rest.
- Plaintiff testified that his speed was between 50 and 55 miles per hour.
- There was no other traffic that would have interfered with the plaintiff's driving.
- Another vehicle had passed the parked car safely just a few minutes before the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued defendant Donald Wayne Vestal in a state trial court for damages from an automobile collision.
- Vestal asserted the defense of contributory negligence and filed a counterclaim for damages to his vehicle.
- At trial, the court, over the plaintiff's objection, admitted into evidence a stopping-distance chart from a DMV driver's handbook.
- The jury returned a verdict against the plaintiff on his claim, precluding his recovery.
- The trial court also granted a motion for nonsuit, dismissing defendant Vestal's counterclaim.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment against him to the state's highest court, arguing the chart's admission was a prejudicial error.
- Defendant Vestal appealed the trial court's dismissal of his counterclaim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a generic chart of average vehicle stopping distances, published by a state's Department of Motor Vehicles, admissible in a negligence action to prove a vehicle's speed without authentication or expert testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Mooke, J.
No. A generic chart of average vehicle stopping distances is inadmissible as evidence to prove speed. For such evidence to be competent, a proper foundation must be laid, which did not occur here. The chart was not authenticated, verified by a witness, or presented through expert testimony. The court reasoned that such charts are pure hearsay and lack the specificity required for evidentiary value. A formula with numerous variables—such as vehicle weight, tire condition, brake type, road surface, and driver reaction time—cannot produce a result of sufficient accuracy and relevancy to be considered evidence in a specific case. Furthermore, the chart is not a proper subject for judicial notice, as the data is not a 'known,' well-established, or authoritatively settled fact, but rather a disputable matter based on unspecified averages. Prior casual references to such manuals by the court were merely rhetorical and did not establish them as competent evidence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the majority rule in American jurisprudence that generic stopping-distance charts are inadmissible hearsay. It establishes a clear precedent in North Carolina, preventing litigants from using driver's manuals or similar publications as a substitute for qualified expert testimony in accident reconstruction cases. The ruling reinforces the foundational evidentiary principles of authentication and reliability, requiring that evidence of this nature be tied directly to the specific facts and conditions of the case at hand. This holding protects juries from being misled by speculative data that appears scientific but lacks relevance to the unique circumstances of an accident.
Unlock the full brief for Hughes Ex Rel. Hughes v. Vestal