On 18 January, 1928, plaintiff was riding in an automobile owned and driven by tbe defendant on tbe State Highway between Higb Point and Asbeboro. Sbe was sitting on tbe rear seat, witb ber niece and lier niece’s husband. Defendant, witb bis wife and son, was on tbe front seat. Plaintiff is tbe sister-in-law of tbe defendant. Tbe party left Winston-Salem at about 7 o’clock a.m., and wаs going to Southern Pines, N. C., where plaintiff’s niece was to enter a sanatorium for treatment.
Plaintiff testified as follows: “It was a little cloudy and just a little bit foggy when we left Winstоn-Salem that morning. When we got to Higb Point it began to rain. Mr. Whitlow was driving tbe car at tbe time we bad tbe accident. We bad passed Higb Point and were on tbe road to Asbеboro. I just remember seeing tbe wheel shaking like that (indicating) and that is about all I know. Tbe automobile left tbe road and ran into a side ditch. That is tbe last I remember until tbe automobile righted itself over in tbe field. We were traveling on a bard-surfaced road, and were on a slight curve. Tbe automobile left tbe road and stopрed in a field — about ten feet beyond tbe ditch. When tbe car stopped I just remember looking over to see if my little niece was all right. We were all still in tbe autоmobile.”
J. L. Ryan, tbe husband of plaintiff’s niece, testified as follows: “Mr. and Mrs. Whitlow and their son were on tbe front seat. Miss Butner, Mrs. Ryan and I were on tbe rear seat. When we left Winston-Salem, it was foggy, and after we got to Higb Point it commenced drizzling rain, and it continued to rain until we got about seven miles this side of Asbeboro. There we bad tbe accident. Prior to tbe accident I did not notice particularly anything about Mr. Whitlow’s driving tbe automobile. Immediately preceding tbe accident, I was sitting in tbe rear seat, looking straight ahead. Tbe road was wet. It bad been dusty. At tbe place of tbe accident there was a curve to tbe left of tbe road. I was watching Mr. Whitlow’s driving, and just before tbe accident happened, be was looking to tbe right, talking to Mrs. Whitlow, and glancing down at tbe floor of tbe automobile. While be was doing *751 this, the automobile eased over almost to the edge of the hard surface on the left. When Mr. Whitlow looked back and saw that the automobile was almost off the rоad, he pulled the steering wheel around to the right. As he did that, because of the condition of the road, the automobile skidded. Mr. Whitlow tried to right the automobile, mаde two or three twists of the wheel, and then put on the brakes. While he was trying to right the automobile, it was going from one side of the road to the other. You could feel the automobile whirl. When he turned it sharp around to the right, the automobile went over on the right-hand side of the shoulder, and hit the embankment. The automobile toоk a nose dive and turned completely over in the field. When it stopped, it was in an upright position. All the passengers stayed in the automobile. At the time of the аccident, Mr. Whitlow was driving at a speed of 35 to 40 miles per hour.”
There was evidence tending to show that as the result of the accident, plaintiff sustained painful and serious injuries. She was unable to perform her duties as a bookkeeper in the employment of the Forsyth Eoller Mills for several months. She paid out large sums оf money for medical and hospital bills. At the trial she testified as follows: “My condition now is quite different from what it was before I was hurt. I suffer with my arm and shoulder most all the time, just a dull ache, especially if I over-do myself, or get nervous. My nerves are much worse than they were before the accident.”
The evidence at the trial оf this action in the county court was properly submitted to the jury, as tending to show that the skidding of the automobile, in which plaintiff was riding, was caused by its negligent operation by the defendant. The mere fact that the automobile skidded was not in itself evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, but there was evidenсe from which the jury could find that the skidding was caused by his negligent driving of the automobile. For this reason it was not error for the judge of the Superior Court to overrule defendant’s assignment of error based on his exception to the refusal of the judge of the county court to allow his motion for judgment as of nonsuit.
Springs v. Doll,
Upon the facts shown by all the evidence in this case, the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff was not affected by her relationship tо him as the owner and driver of the automobile in which she was riding, and it was therefore immaterial whether she was his guest, or whether she and he were engaged in a joint аdventure in the operation of the automobile. Plaintiff had made arrangements for the admission of her niece into a sanatorium at Southern Pines as a рatient, and had undertaken to pay all her expenses while at the sanatorium; defendant had undertaken to take the niece of plaintiff, who is his daughter, in his аutomobile from her home in Winston-Salem to Southern Pines. Plaintiff was not a member of the defendant’s family. She is the sister of his first wife, and the aunt of his daughter by his first wife. The defendant wаs not driving the automobile as the agent of the plaintiff, nor did plaintiff have any control of the operation of the automobile. There is no principlе of law upon which the negligence of the defendant in the operation of the automobile can be imputed to plaintiff, with the result that defendant is absоlved from liability to her for damages caused by his negligence. See
Schwartz v. Johnson,
At the trial counsel appearing for the defendant objected to a question addressed to the defendant on his cross-examination аs follows: “Did the finance people take your automobile or did the insurance company take it?” The objection was sustained. Counsel then moved fоr a mistrial because this question had been asked by counsel for plaintiff. The motion was denied, and defendant excepted. This motion was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. In the absence of any evidence in the record showing' that defendant was prejudiced by the asking of the question, the ruling of the trial judgе on defendant’s motion for a mistrial will not be reviewed on his appeal.
Goss v. Williams,
196 N. C.,
*753
213 at page 223,
We find no error in the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of the county court. The judgment is, therefore,
Affirmed.