driver claim in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2021 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Smithgreen nc · 1965 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Indeed, a hit and run occurs even if the departing driver is completely without fault in the collision and not subject to “apprehension.” See State v. Smith, 264 N.C. 575, 577 , 142 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1965) (“Absence of fault on the part of the driver is not a defense to the charge of failure to stop.”). 2021Indeed, a hit and run occurs even if the departing driver is completely without fault in the collision and not subject to “apprehension.” See State v. Smith, 264 N.C. 575, 577 , 142 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1965) (“Absence of fault on the part of the driver is not a defense to the charge of failure to stop.”).	2	2
State v. Falanagreen ncctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See State v. Falana, 129 N.C.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Samuels v. Bowers green nc · 1950 2 sentences 1968In Samuels v. Bowers, 232 N.C. 149 , 59 S.E. 2d 787 , the Court said: 635 “The principle is generally recognized that when a gratuitous passenger becomes aware that the automobile in which he is riding is being persistently driven at an excessive and dangerous speed, the duty devolves upon him in the exercise of due care for his own safety to caution the driver, and, if his warning is disregarded and speed unaltered, to request that the automobile be stopped and he be permitted to leave the car. [Citing authority.] He may not acquiesce in a continued course of negligent conduct on the part of 1968In Samuels v. Bowers, 232 N.C. 149 , 59 S.E. 2d 787 , the Court said: 635 “The principle is generally recognized that when a gratuitous passenger becomes aware that the automobile in which he is riding is being persistently driven at an excessive and dangerous speed, the duty devolves upon him in the exercise of due care for his own safety to caution the driver, and, if his warning is disregarded and speed unaltered, to request that the automobile be stopped and he be permitted to leave the car. [Citing authority.] He may not acquiesce in a continued course of negligent conduct on the part of	2	1968–1977
O'Neal v. Caffarello green illappct · 1940 2 sentences 1957But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances. 4 Blashfield, pg. 568; O’Neal v. Caffarello, 303 Ill. 1950But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances. 4 Blashfield, pg. 568; O'Neal v. Caffarello, 303 Ill.	2	1950–1957
United States v. Dennys Rodriguez green ca8 · 2014 1 sentence 2015The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the "resulting seven- or eight-minute delay ... constituted a de minimus intrusion on Rodriguez's personal liberty[.]" United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 , 907-08 (8th Cir.2014).	1	2015–2015
Taylor v. . Caudle neutral nc · 1936 2 sentences 1968But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances.” In the following cases where there was evidence of excessive speed, the question of whether a guest passenger was guilty of contributory negligence was held properly submitted to the jury for determination: King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554 , 163 S.E. 447 ; Taylor v. Caudle, 210 N.C. 60 , 185 S.E. 446 . 1968But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances.” In the following cases where there was evidence of excessive speed, the question of whether a guest passenger was guilty of contributory negligence was held properly submitted to the jury for determination: King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554 , 163 S.E. 447 ; Taylor v. Caudle, 210 N.C. 60 , 185 S.E. 446 .	1	1968–1968
King v. . Pope green nc · 1932 2 sentences 1968But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances.” In the following cases where there was evidence of excessive speed, the question of whether a guest passenger was guilty of contributory negligence was held properly submitted to the jury for determination: King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554 , 163 S.E. 447 ; Taylor v. Caudle, 210 N.C. 60 , 185 S.E. 446 . 1968But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances.” In the following cases where there was evidence of excessive speed, the question of whether a guest passenger was guilty of contributory negligence was held properly submitted to the jury for determination: King v. Pope, 202 N.C. 554 , 163 S.E. 447 ; Taylor v. Caudle, 210 N.C. 60 , 185 S.E. 446 .	1	1968–1968

Where else courts name it

PA 115 (1918–2026) CA 23 (1960–2026) MO 19 (1932–2016) NJ 18 (1908–2024) WA 13 (1984–2020) FL 12 (1956–2023) MN 11 (1886–2016) OH 10 (1960–2021) ND 10 (1989–2025) TX 9 (1962–2026) IL 8 (1914–2024) NC 8 (1950–2021) CO 7 (1978–2012) MI 7 (1951–1984) NY 6 (1918–2003) VA 6 (1987–2006) IN 6 (1993–2017) ID 6 (1999–2025) IA 5 (1977–2019) KS 4 (1995–2020) GA 3 (2008–2020) TN 3 (1945–1976) WI 3 (1921–2024) AL 3 (1995–2002) WV 2 (2012–2017) LA 2 (1949–1989) DC 2 (2005–2011) MD 2 (2011–2022) AZ 2 (1971–2016) MA 2 (1998–2005) OR 2 (2011–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check