Pender v. National Convoy & Trucking Co.
206 N.C. 266, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 159, 173 S.E. 336 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver who creates an obstruction on a public highway has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the peril, and a failure to perform this duty constitutes negligence.
Facts:
- Floyd S. Williams, an employee of National Convoy and Trucking Company, was operating a company truck with a trailer attached that was more than 61 feet long.
- Williams attempted to turn the truck on a narrow, curved road.
- The wheels of the truck became stuck in soft ground off the pavement, rendering the truck and trailer immobile.
- The immobilized truck and trailer completely blocked the road to other vehicles at a point following a steep grade and a curve.
- The plaintiff was driving his truck down the grade and around the curve when he collided with the defendants' stationary truck.
- The defendants did not provide a warning to oncoming traffic, such as a flagman or other danger signals, about the obstruction.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued National Convoy and Trucking Company and its employee, Floyd S. Williams, in a trial court for damages resulting from a collision.
- At the close of all evidence during the trial, the defendants made a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, arguing the plaintiff had presented insufficient evidence of negligence.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion.
- A judgment was entered against the defendants, who were the appellants in this action.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to this appellate court, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to grant their motion for nonsuit.
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 who obstructs a public highway with their vehicle have a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Connor, J.
Yes. A driver who obstructs a highway owes a duty to others approaching the obstruction to exercise reasonable care to warn them of their peril. Although there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claims that the defendants were negligent in the act of turning the truck or in using an illegally long trailer, there was evidence that they were negligent for failing to warn other drivers of the hazard. Once Williams found himself unable to move the truck, a duty arose to warn approaching motorists of the dangerous obstruction. The court found that a failure to perform this duty is negligence and that there was sufficient evidence to show this negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a failure to act—specifically, a failure to warn—can be an independent basis for a negligence claim. It separates the act of creating a hazard from the subsequent duty to mitigate that hazard for others. The case establishes that even if a driver is not at fault for creating an obstruction, a new, affirmative duty of care arises to warn others of the danger. This precedent is crucial in personal injury cases involving road obstructions, as it allows plaintiffs to focus on the reasonableness of the defendant's actions after the initial incident occurred.
