## Facts

- Earon E. Griffin owned and drove a 1965 Pontiac automobile southbound on a North Carolina highway at night.
- LeRoy Thomas Watkins operated a 1960 John Deere tractor in the same direction; the tractor was owned by Watkins’s employer, Dickerson, Incorporated.
- The tractor ran out of gasoline and came to a stop in the southbound lane, with its right wheels on the shoulder and the remainder of the tractor in the lane of travel.
- Griffin’s Pontiac struck the rear of the tractor.
- Griffin sued Watkins and Dickerson, Incorporated for negligence, seeking damages for personal injuries and for damage to his automobile.
- Defendants denied negligence and alleged that Griffin’s contributory negligence caused the collision.
- Defendants specifically alleged Griffin failed to operate at a speed that would allow him to stop within the range of his headlights; they also pointed to evidence that headlights were required and that Griffin may have been exceeding the statutory maximum speed.
- Watkins filed a counterclaim for his own personal injuries.
- The jury returned a verdict for Griffin, awarding $40,000 for personal injuries and $0 for automobile damage; judgment was entered on the verdict.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the adequacy of the trial court’s jury instructions on both defendants’ negligence and Griffin’s contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by instructing on defendants’ negligence only in broad, abstract terms, without explaining which specific acts or omissions alleged and supported by evidence would constitute actionable negligence?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to properly instruct on Griffin’s alleged contributory negligence under the “range of headlights” theory, including the effect of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141(e) when the driver may have been exceeding the statutory maximum speed?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina set aside the judgment for Griffin and ordered a new trial.
- The court held the negligence charge was inadequate because it did not relate the governing negligence rules to the concrete theories of negligence raised by the pleadings and evidence.
- The court held the contributory-negligence charge was also erroneous because the jury was not properly instructed on the defendants’ “range of headlights” theory in light of § 20-141(e), including defendants’ evidence and contentions regarding speeding.

## Legal Principles

- A North Carolina trial judge must declare and explain the law arising on the evidence and relate it to the specific factual contentions and legal theories presented; abstract statements of “due care” are not enough when specific negligent acts or omissions are in issue.
- Before § 20-141(e), a nighttime driver’s failure to drive so as to stop within the range of the vehicle’s headlights could constitute negligence per se (or contributory negligence per se) when it proximately caused the collision.
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141(e) changes that result only for a driver operating within the statutory maximum speed limits: in that situation, inability to stop within the headlights’ range is not negligence per se (or contributory negligence per se), but is a fact the jury may weigh with the rest of the evidence.
- The § 20-141(e) protection does not extend to a driver operating in excess of the statutory maximum speed limits; when speeding is found, inability to stop within the headlights’ range may constitute negligence per se (or contributory negligence per se) if it is a proximate cause.
- When a party pleads and offers evidence for a contributory-negligence theory and requests a correct, supported instruction (including instructions tied to statutory speed limits and § 20-141(e)), the trial court must give an instruction that fairly presents that theory.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was not adequately told what specific conduct could amount to defendants’ negligence, and because the jury was not properly instructed on the defendants’ contributory-negligence theory concerning stopping within the range of headlights in light of § 20-141(e) and evidence of speeding, the verdict for Griffin could not stand and the case required a new trial.


Griffin v. Watkins, 153 S.E.2d 356 (1967)