midpage

Cohee v. SlighCohee v. Sligh

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Apr 10, 1963
378
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Per Curiam
Per Curiam.

If the owner of an automobile is to be held liable for the manner in which it ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‍is operated, he must be charged with responsibility for the operation — ‘mere ownership is not sufficient. Responsibility may be imposed because of the personal negligence of the owner or because the owner acts through ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‍an agent or under the “family purpose doctrine.” Lynn v. Clark, 252 N.C. 289, 113 S.E. 2d 427; Parker v. Underwood, 239 N.C. 308, 79 S.E. 2d 765.

A complaint which fails to state a cause of action is not sufficient to ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‍support a judgment for plaintiff. Morton v. Insurance Co., 255 N.C. 360, 121 S.E. 2d 716; Collins v. Simms, 254 N.C. 148, 118 S.E. 2d 402. The court erred in refusing to allow defendant’s motion. It had a discretionary right ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‍to allow plaintiff’s motion to amend; but any amendment so made could not relate back to the institution of the action and thereby deprive defendant of his opportunity to answer. Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 N.C. 380, 100 S.E. ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‍2d 841.

The default and inquiry judgments will be vacated and defendant allowed time to answer the amended complaint.

Reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Cohee v. Sligh
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Apr 10, 1963
Citations: 259 N.C. 248; 130 S.E.2d 310; 1963 N.C. LEXIS 525; 378
Docket Number: 378
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
Log In