Ward v. Carmona, 770 S.E.2d 70

On Jan. 5, 2011, plaintiff Sheena Moody Ward's son, Justin Ward, drove the plaintiff’s 1991 Mercedes east on Spring Forest Road and attempted a left turn at Departure Drive; defendant Luis Carmona drove a 1999 Plymouth van west and the vehicles collided in the intersection.
Ward testified he entered the intersection when the light was green, then came to a stop, the light turned red, and he completed a left turn; he also testified his view of oncoming traffic was unobstructed.
Carmona’s testimony about the traffic signal was inconsistent—he variously stated the light was green as he entered and elsewhere that it turned yellow when he was about eight feet away; defendant introduced exhibits supporting his version.
A jury found both Carmona and Ward negligent and awarded plaintiff nothing; the trial court entered judgment denying relief and denied motions for a new trial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina granted discretionary review to consider whether the dual-negligence verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence or reflected a new theory of motor-vehicle negligence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find both drivers negligent, and no new or inconsistent legal theory was adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury verdict finding both drivers negligent is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence	Ward (and plaintiff) argued there was no competent evidence that Ward was on notice Carmona would disobey the light, so contributory negligence should not have been submitted	Carmona argued conflicting testimony and exhibits created factual disputes properly resolved by the jury	Court held there was sufficient conflicting evidence for a jury to find both negligent; verdict not against greater weight of evidence
Whether the Court of Appeals adopted a new theory of motor-vehicle negligence inconsistent with existing law (e.g., Cicogna)	Plaintiff argued Cicogna controls and that submitting contributory negligence or holding Ward partly negligent contradicts that precedent	Defendant and courts argued Cicogna is distinguishable because facts there showed no evidence the plaintiff could have anticipated the defendant’s conduct	Court held Cicogna is distinguishable and no new duty or inconsistent rule was created; statutory duties remain controlling

Mattingly v. N.C. R.R. Co., 253 N.C. 746, 117 S.E.2d 844 (1961) (elements of negligence and proximate cause)
Hyder v. Asheville Storage Battery Co., 242 N.C. 553, 89 S.E.2d 124 (1955) (drivers must maintain lookout and exercise reasonable care approaching intersection)
Wiggins v. Ponder, 259 N.C. 277, 130 S.E.2d 402 (1963) (duty to ascertain safety before turning)
Cicogna v. Holder, 345 N.C. 488, 480 S.E.2d 636 (1997) (contributory negligence instruction improper where plaintiff had no notice defendant would disobey signal)
Anderson v. Hollifield, 345 N.C. 480, 480 S.E.2d 661 (1997) (jury as sole judge of witness credibility)
Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 141 S.E.2d 875 (1965) (jurors may believe all, part, or none of testimony)