When a motorist observes signs, signals, or markings upon a street which are in common use by municipalities for the purpose of controlling and directing traffic, he has the right to assume that they were placed there by or under the direction of the municipal authоrities. He may operate his automobile in obedience to such signs or signals and presume that other motorists will do likewise. If, in an action to recover damages for injuries inflicted by reason thereof, it is denied by the defendant that such signs, signals, or markings were оfficial, plaintiff, in order to hold defendant guilty of negligence in that he disregarded them, mаy be required to show that they were placed on the street by direction of the рroper authorities. But here there is no such denial. Hence that question is reserved for future consideration.
The rule of the road contained in G-.S. 20-149 does not apply where there are three lanes available to the motorist, as here, and the forward vehicle is in the left-turn lane and the overtaking vehicle is in the through-traffic lane.
Maddox v. Brown,
Defendants sеek, however, to justify tbe conduct of tbe individual •defendant by asserting that be beard the siren and turned to tbe right as required by G.S. 20-157 which provides that:
“(a) Upon tbe approach of any police or fire department vehicle giving audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust- whistle, tbe driver of every •other vehicle shall immediately drive tbe same to a positiоn as near as possible and parallel to tbe right-band edge or curb, clear of any intersection of highways, and shall stop and remain in such position unless otherwise dirеcted by a police or traffic officer until the police or fire •department vehicle shall have passed.”
But on this record this position is untenable. Begardless of the fact the truck was standing in the left-turn lane and plaintiff was traveling in the center or through-traffic lane and the effect these facts may have on the respeсtive rights and duties of the parties, the approach of a police vehicle giving a signal by siren did not nullify or suspend the provisions of G.S. 20-154, or relieve the defendant Doсkery of the duty to ascertain, before turning to his right, that such movement could be made in safety, or to signal any vehicle approaching from the rear.
Williams v. Henderson,
That the declarations of Dockery made immediately after the collision wеre admitted only as against him does not affect the result as to the corporate defendant. It is not alleged that the corporate defendant committed any act of negligence. As to it, plaintiff relies on the doctrine of respondeat superior. If, upon consideration of all the evidence, the jury shall find that plaintiff suffered injuries as a proximate result of the negligence of Dockery, then Dockery’s negligence will be imputed tо the corporate defendant, thus imposing liability upon it for the injuries sustained.
The evidеnce is insufficient to warrant the conclusion, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was guilty оf such negligence as would bar his recovery for the injuries received. Whether there is any evidence of contributory negligence sufficient to require the submission of an issuе is reserved for the court below to decide, in the first instance, on the retrial of this сause.
The plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that the truck was standing in the center lanе for east-bound traffic, and defendants, in their answer, *146 allege it was standing on its own proрer rigbt-band side of tbe street. If tbe facts in respect thereto are as tbe evidеnce before us tends to sbow, it may be advisable for tbe parties to amend tbeir pleadings so as to conform to tbe facts.
Tbe judgment entered is
Reversed.