Legal Opinion

Hout v. Harvell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 3, 1967No. 607PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaep, J.

Under the circumstances detailed in the complaint, irrespective of her speed or failure to keep a proper lookout, Mrs. Harvell could not have avoided a collision with the Hout vehicle. As to defendant Hout, defendants Harvell, and plaintiff — a passenger in the Hout automobile — the conduct of Mrs. Harvell may not be held to constitute one of the proximate causes of the collision. The conduct of defendant Hout made the collision inevitable, insulated any prior negligence of Mrs. Harvell, and constituted the sole proximate cause of the collision.

The preceding paragraph is a paraphrase of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Butner v. SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. HastySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Loving v. WhittonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Shives v. SampleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Auman v. EasterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Arant Ex Rel. Rooker v. RansomCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  3. Childs v. DowdyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Alexander v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API