{
  "id": 8554765,
  "name": "EDWARD B. MURRELL v. WILLIAM A. POOLE and CAROLINA TURF COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murrell v. Poole",
  "decision_date": "1968-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "584",
  "last_page": "587",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 584"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 392,
    "char_count": 6385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34065267897858137
    },
    "sha256": "c0ff4951dbfd47f747b82640c101bcd4767c822fadca1b29fd91da219c23fdf7",
    "simhash": "1:8a652529059868d2",
    "word_count": 1118
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brock and Parker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDWARD B. MURRELL v. WILLIAM A. POOLE and CAROLINA TURF COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mallard, C.J.\nAppellant and appellee stipulate that \u201cRule 19 (d) (2) of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals shall apply to this appeal.\u201d Pursuant to this rule, the stenographic transcript of the evidence was filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. However, this rule also requires that \u201cthe appellant in an appendix to his brief shall set forth in succinct language with respect to those witnesses whose testimony is deemed to be pertinent to the questions raised on appeal, what he says the testimony of such witness tends to establish with citation to the page of the stenographic transcript in support thereof.\u201d The appellant does not comply with this latter requirement. Rule 48 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals provides that \u201c (i) f these rules are not complied with, the appeal may be dismissed.\u201d\nThe deposition of the medical expert who examined and treated the plaintiff for his injuries was offered at the trial. He was asked and permitted to answer the following questions:\n\u201cQ. Doctor, if the Jury in this case should find from the evidence and by its greater weight that on or about the 14th day of November, 1966, Mr. Murrell was riding in a bus or motor vehicle which was struck from behind with such force that it threw his head back and pressed it against a metal bar at the back of his seat, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not this could have caused the condition that you have described?\nA. Yes, that could have caused the onset and this be the aftermath of the injury.\nQ. All right, sir. Doctor, now, as of the last time that you saw Mr. Murrell, what was your prognosis?\nA. Well, he will be able to work. He will suffer at different times or if the weather changes or he is in a draft due to his work. He will suffer to some extent and have some soreness, however, he will be able to carry on his work and he can control this soreness with the use of analgesics.\nQ. Doctor, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to how long this condition will continue to exist?\nA. That is an unknown question. How long it will last. It may go on for several months, maybe a year, and it may stop tomorrow. That\u2019s the peculiarity of that type of condition.\u201d\nDefendant did not bring forward in the brief his exception and assignment of error to the hypothetical question and answer and did not object or except to the doctor giving his prognosis. However, defendant contends that the court committed error in permitting the doctor to give his opinion as to how long the plaintiff\u2019s condition would continue to exist. This contention is without merit. The doctor had just testified, without objection, that the plaintiff will suffer, and this implies that the suffering will continue for some time. It was not prejudicial error under these circumstances for the doctor to be asked and to give as his opinion that he did not know for how long this condition would continue. In Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 135, it is said, \u201cThe testimony of properly qualified medical experts may cover a wide range, their opinion having been received on questions of . . . the extent and duration of an injury or disease . . .\u201d (emphasis added.)\nDefendant also assigns as error certain portions of the judge\u2019s charge. When the charge is read as a whole, it correctly applies the law to the facts in this case.\nInstead of dismissing the appeal for failure to comply with the rules, we have carefully examined and considered each assignment of error brought forward in appellant\u2019s brief and find no prejudicial error.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.\nBrock and Parker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mallard, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Herring, Walton, Parker & Powell by Bay H. Walton for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Marshall & Williams by Daniel Lee Brawley for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWARD B. MURRELL v. WILLIAM A. POOLE and CAROLINA TURF COMPANY.\n(Filed 10 July 1968.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 41\u2014\nWhere appellant caused to be filed with the clerk a stenographic transcript of the evidence in the trial tribunal, the failure to provide an appendix to the brief setting forth \u201cin succinct language with respect to those witnesses whose testimony is deemed to be pertinent to the questions raised on appeal, what he says the testimony of such witnesses .tends to establish with citation to the page of the stenographic transcript in support thereof\u201d subjects the appeal to- dismissal. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 19(d)(2).\n2. Evidence \u00a7 50\u2014\nWhere a medical expert has testified without objection that plaintiff \u201cwill suffer\u201d from an injury, it is not prejudicial error for him to be asked and to give as his opinion that he did not know how long this condition would continue, it being competent for a medical expert to give his opinion as to the duration of an injury.\nAppeal by defendants from Hall, J., 11 December 1967 Civil Session of Superior Court of Brunswick County.\nPlaintiff alleged he was injured on 12 November 1966 when the bus he was driving was struck in the rear by a motor vehicle owned by defendant Carolina Turf Company and operated negligently by its agent, the defendant Poole. Defendant admitted agency, denied negligence, denied plaintiff was injured, and alleged contributory negligence.\nPlaintiff offered evidence which tends to show that on 12 November 1966 he was driving a passenger bus at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour eastward on N. C. State Highway #211 when he observed a small automobile ahead of him making a \u201cU\u201d turn on the highway. He gradually applied his brakes so as to reduce his speed to approximately 30 to 35 miles per hour, and as he did so, the motor vehicle being operated by the defendant Poole, which had been following him, collided with the rear of the bus. The impact damaged the rear of the bus, the front of the motor vehicle (a station wagon) operated by the defendant Poole, and caused plaintiff\u2019s shoulders to be thrown against a metal bar back of the driver\u2019s seat causing injuries to his neck and shoulder.\nThe road at the place of collision was straight for a half a mile or more in each direction. The collision occurred at about 9:30 a.m. It was raining, and the highway was wet. Defendant offered no evidence. The court submitted the issues of negligence and damage which were answered in plaintiff\u2019s favor. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.\nHerring, Walton, Parker & Powell by Bay H. Walton for plaintiff appellee.\nMarshall & Williams by Daniel Lee Brawley for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0584-01",
  "first_page_order": 606,
  "last_page_order": 609
}