QUEEN CITY COACH COMPANY v. Fultz

All questions posed relate to the electrical signal device on the Fultz car. Appellants contend that, “without a prior showing that such signal was ‘approved by Department’ as required by G.S. 20-154 (b),” the evidence relating to the use thereof should have been excluded. Their assignments of error challenge (1) the competency of such evidence, (2) the charge of the court relating thereto, and (3) the court’s failure to give requested instructions.

If the Fultz car made a left turn without giving a signal as required by G.S. 20-154, this statutory violation would constitute negligence per se;…