Tbе defendant reserved exceptions to tbe refusal of bis ^notions for a compulsory nonsuit undеr G.S. 1-183.
Under tbe statute codified as G.S. 20-154, any person who undertakes to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway must exercise reasonable cаre to ascertain that such movement cаn be made in safety before be turns either to tbe right or tbe left from a direct line. Besides be is required by tbe same statute to signal bis intention to turn in tbe prеscribed manner and for tbe specified distance before changing bis course “whenever tbe operation of any other vehicle mаy be affected by such movement.” A motorist violates G.S. 20-154 and in consequence is negligent as a mаtter of law if be fails to observe either of thеse statutory precautions in changing tbe cоurse of bis vehicle upon tbe highway, and bis negligenсe in such respect is actionable if it prоximately causes injury to another.
Cooley v. Baker,
*68 This brings us to the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff was eontributorily negligent as a matter of law.
The plea of contributory negligence in this case is simply this: (1) That the plaintiff drove his automobilе upon the highway at an excessive speed and without keeping a proper lookout; and (2) that such specific acts of negligenсe proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s damage and injury. The controlling rule on this phase оf the litigation is elaborated in
Bundy v. Powell,
The testimony of the plaintiff at the trial did not establish the facts indispensable tо the defendant’s plea of contributory negligence. Hence, the trial judge rightly rejected the argument that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The questions raisеd by the remaining exceptions have been dеcided adversely to defendant in well considered precedents, and require no discussion.
The judgment of the Superior Court is upheld, for there is in law
No error.