Chaffin v. Brame

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory negligenceNight drivingordinary carecontributory negligencenighttime motoristrange of lights

Facts

At night, plaintiff was driving south on Route 18 when he encountered defendant's truck parked on the traveled portion of the highway without lights or warning signals, blocking the entire right lane. As plaintiff approached, an oncoming car driven by Garland displayed glaring undimmed headlights, partially blinding plaintiff even after plaintiff blinked his lights and reduced speed substantially. Plaintiff did not see defendant's truck until he had passed Garland's headlights and was about 30 feet away, then attempted to veer left but struck the rear of the truck at no more than 20 miles per hour. Defendant later admitted that his negligence caused the collision.

Issue

Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he did not so control his automobile as to be able to stop within the range of his lights under the nighttime conditions shown by his evidence. Whether the trial court could permit plaintiff to amend his complaint after verdict and before judgment when the amendment conformed the pleading to the evidence without substantially changing the claim.

Rule

The ultimate test is what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances as they presented themselves to the plaintiff. A nighttime motorist must use ordinary care and must drive so that he can stop or change course in time to avoid an obstacle whose presence is reasonably perceivable or reasonably expectable, but he is not required to anticipate negligent acts of others or to see what is invisible to a person exercising ordinary care. Until notice to the contrary, he may assume others will comply with legal duties concerning vehicle lights, warning signals, and dimming headlights. Under G.S. 1-163, a court may allow amendment of a pleading before or after judgment to conform to the facts proved if the amendment does not substantially change the claim or defense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At 10:30 p.m. near Asheville, Nora Benton drove south on a two-lane road at about 38 mph. An oncoming van approached with bright undimmed headlights; Nora immediately slowed to about 18 mph and blinked her lights, but after passing the van she discovered a dark delivery truck stopped in her lane with no rear lights or warning devices and struck it despite swerving left.

If the truck owner argues Nora was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because she could not stop within the range of her headlights, how should the court rule on a motion for nonsuit based only on Nora’s evidence?

Explanation. The majority rejects a mechanical 'range of lights' rule. The ultimate question is what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances as they appeared to the plaintiff. A nighttime motorist must drive so he can stop or change course to avoid obstacles that are reasonably perceivable or reasonably expectable, but he need not anticipate unlawful, unlighted obstructions or see what is effectively invisible while exercising ordinary care. On Nora’s evidence, she slowed, signaled distress, and acted immediately once the truck became visible, so contributory negligence is not established as a matter of law. (Derived from Chaffin v. Brame (n.d.).)