From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Floyd v. Dickey

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1957
96 S.E.2d 731 (N.C. 1957)

Opinion

Filed 27 February, 1957.

Automobiles 54f — Where action is instituted more than a year after the cause of action accrued, so that plaintiff does not have the benefit of G.S. 20-71.1, nonsuit is properly entered as to the alleged superior when there is no evidence that the driver was operating the truck in the course of his employment as an agent or employee of the superior.

APPEAL by plaintiff from Nettles, J., November Term 1956 of CHEROKEE.

Frank Ferguson and T. D. Bryson for plaintiff appellant.

McKeever Edwards, F. O. Christopher, and McKinley Edwards for defendant Dickey, appellee.


Plaintiff's intestate was struck and killed on 25 May 1954 by a motor vehicle owned by defendant Dickey and, at the time of the accident, operated by defendant Crisp. This action was begun 16 February 1956. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence defendant Dickey moved for nonsuit. The motion was allowed. Thereupon plaintiff submitted to a voluntary nonsuit as to the defendant Crisp and appealed.


Dickey's asserted liability is predicated on the theory of respondeat superior. There is no evidence to show that Crisp in moving the truck was the agent of Dickey and about his master's business. Plaintiff does not have the benefit of G.S. 20-71.1 as she waited more than one year after the cause of action accrued before instituting suit. The judgment is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Floyd v. Dickey

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1957
96 S.E.2d 731 (N.C. 1957)
Case details for

Floyd v. Dickey

Case Details

Full title:MRS. NORA C. FLOYD v. FRANK DICKEY AND WAYNE CRISP

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1957

Citations

96 S.E.2d 731 (N.C. 1957)
96 S.E.2d 731

Citing Cases

Knight v. Associated Transport

In view of the fact that this action was not instituted within one year of the date of the alleged injury,…

Holcombe v. Bowman

The appellant contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in its findings of fact and conclusions…