Jenkins v. City Coach Co.

Ervin, J. A motor vehicle carrier for compensation is not absolutely liable to its passengers for personal injuries sustained by them in the course of their transportation. But it does owe to its passengers the duty of exercising the highest degree of care for their safety compatible with the practical operation of its motor vehicles, and is legally accountable to them for personal injuries proximately caused by its negligence in failing to perform such duty. Humphries v. Coach Co., 228 N.C. 399, 45 S.E. 2d 546; White v. Chappell, 219 N.C. 652, 14 S.E. 2d 843. The appeal presents this problem: Was the evidence adduced by plaintiff at the trial sufficient to show the essential elements of a cause of action under this rule ? The plaintiff maintains that this question should receive an affirmative answer. To support this position, she lays hold upon the testimony that before the accident the bus driver was talking and laughing with passengers seated near the front of the bus, and on that basis alone invokes a triple inference: (1) That since he was talking and laughing, the bus driver did not observe the highway ahead; (2) that since he did not see the highway ahead, he did not anticipate that the automobile would suddenly swerve across the highway and strike the bus just as the two vehicles met; and (3) that since he did not foresee the untoward swerving of the automobile, he “made no effort to sto^ the bus or do anything else to avoid a collision, which he should have reasonably expected under the circumstances.” The wbest of men noted the therapeutic property of laughter centuries ago, and p reserved his discovery in the uplifting proverb : “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.” A poet of a later age and clime has declared that “there’f nothing worth the wear of winning but laughter and the love of friends.” F^>r these reasons, the law ought not to do such a solemn thing to life as tr discountenance laughter unless it is forced to do so by the direst of compulsions. Besides, there may be more than a modicum of scientific truth in *he oft repeated assertion that man is distinguished from other animals merely by his capacity to laugh, and we would be reluctant, indeed, to ad' pdicate with grave mien in any case that possibly the only characteri'-fic difference between man and beast constitutes evidence that man is a negligent creature. Happily, the record on this appeal saves us from so gloomy a task. It negates the two prerequisites to liability, to wit, negligence and proximate cause. *211 Tbe evidence of the plaintiff discloses with positiveness that the operator of the bus was driving in a careful manner and at a lawful speed upon the proper side of the highway as he approached and met the automobile. Brown v. Truck Lines, 229 N.C. 122, 47 S.E. 2d 711. Moreover, it compels the conclusion that he was keeping a vigilant lookout for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. This is made certain by the testimony showing that despite the sudden and unexpected deflection of the automobile, the driver of the bus took immediate steps to extricate the bus and its occupants from the ensuing peril by reducing the speed of the bus and attempting to drive it from the paved highway onto the dirt shoulder to his right. The law does not expect clairvoyance of operators of motor vehicles. A motorist, who is proceeding on his right side of the highway, is not required to anticipate that an automobile, which is coming from the opposite direction on its own side of the road, will suddenly leave its side of the road and turn into his. path. He has the right to assume under such circumstances that the approaching automobile will remain on its own side of the road until the vehicles meet and pass in safety, Brown v. Products Co., Inc., 222 N.C. 626, 24 S.E. 2d 334; Hancock v. Wilson, 211 N.C. 129, 189 S.E. 631; James v. Coach Co., 207 N.C. 742, 178 S.E. 607; Cory v. Cory, 205 N.C. 205, 170 S.E. 629; Shirley v. Ayers, 201 N.C. 51, 158 S.E. 840. The judgment of nonsuit is Affirmed.