was not going to happen, alcohol-related or not.” He also testified that he did not think the alcohol slowed his reflexes of reaction time. From the evidence, there is a genuine issue of fact as to what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Federal Paper Bd. Co. v. Kamyr, Inc., 101 N.C. App. 329, 333, 399 S.E.2d 411, 414 (“Summary judgment may not be used to resolve factual disputes which are material to the disposition of the action.”), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 570, 403 S.E.2d 510 (1991). If a reasonable and sober person would have moved left of center to avoid the parked cars and could not have stopped in time to avoid the accident, then Mr. Logan’s actions in driving while intoxicated and driving left of center would not be an intervening cause. See id. (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude there is a genuine
holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run holding that with regard to intervening causes except when reasonable minds could not differ the question should be left for the jury to determine whether the intervening act and the resultant injury were such that the author of the original wrong could reasonably have expected them to occur as a result of his own negligent act holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ