
    B. J. CLONINGER v. AKERS MOTOR LINES, INC.
    (Filed 2 May, 1956.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Crissman, J., January Term, 1956, of Cabarrus.
    This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant’s driver and employee while engaged in the course and scope of his employment.
    
      The accident complained of occurred on 29 August, 1953, around 9:15 a.m. when the plaintiff, a Highway Patrolman, was allegedly giving chase to a speeding Ford car on State Highway No. 49. Plaintiff’s car was parked off the highway and before entering it to give chase to the speeding motorist, a Buick car and the defendant’s tractor-trailer passed him traveling westerly in the same direction of the speeding car. Plaintiff, by reason of the eastbound traffic, followed the defendant’s tractor-trailer which was traveling from 40 to 45 miles an hour, for more than half a mile. The paved highway was 24 feet wide and the plaintiff was traveling about 60 miles an hour when he passed the tractor-trailer. Plaintiff testified that, “As I pulled up alongside the tractor-trailer, the tractor pulled some 3 or 4 feet to the left of the center of the highway. ... I cut left with him and hit the shoulder of the road.” Plaintiff further testified that he was about 100 or 150 feet from where the accident occurred when he actually passed the tractor-trailer; that he did not give but one signal of his intention to pass the tractor-trailer and did not give that until “I was almost alongside of it.” That when he had gotten by the tractor-trailer and was attempting to get back on the highway, his car went across the highway in front of the tractor-trailer, turned completely around, hit the shoulder again and v^ent backward off the highway, resulting in serious bodily injury to him. The patrol car which the plaintiff was driving did not collide with the defendant’s tractor-trailer, or any other vehicle.
    At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, a motion for judgment as of nonsuit was allowed. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
    
      Bedford W. Black and, John Hugh Williams for plaintiff.
    
    
      Helms & Mulliss, Wm. H. Bobbitt, Jr., and Hartsell & Ilartsell for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

A careful consideration of the evidence adduced in the trial below leads us to the conclusion that the ruling of the court below on the motion for judgment as of nonsuit should be upheld.

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.  