{
  "id": 8551410,
  "name": "WILLIAM H. DOTSON v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION and WILLIAM LOWNDES CAIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dotson v. Allied Chemical Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7010SC437",
  "first_page": "123",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 123"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 828",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623394
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0620-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 381,
    "char_count": 6467,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0138298990704407e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9063524552975869
    },
    "sha256": "0d122d7feaea2c55db08e1e7d17c577ab98ddcf874120437bdc9136967280a4a",
    "simhash": "1:720eea9cd27700f6",
    "word_count": 1040
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM H. DOTSON v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION and WILLIAM LOWNDES CAIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns as error that he was not permitted to testify as to his physical condition prior to the accident. We note that counsel made no attempt to have the answers to his questions entered on the record; thus we cannot determine whether the exclusion of this evidence was prejudicial. However, the plaintiff was allowed, in an earlier portion of his testimony, to state facts indicative of good condition prior to the collision with defendant.\nPlaintiff assigns as error that the trial court did not permit his expert medical witness to define his specialty (orthopedic surgery) for the benefit of the jury, or to state the length of his practice. Defendants had stipulated that the witness was an expert in orthopedic surgery, and contended that no further evidence as to his qualifications was permissible.\nPlaintiff contends that, because of the exclusion of this evidence of his witness\u2019 qualifications, the jury was unable to give due weight to his testimony as to the cause and extent of plaintiff\u2019s injuries, and thus, may have been led to find that plaintiff was not injured. We agree. Expert witnesses may state their opinions \u201cfor the reason lay jurors do not possess the expert knowledge, skill, or training necessary to enable them to make the deduction for themselves.\u201d Tyndall v. Hines Co., 226 N.C. 620, 39 S.E. 2d 828. The jury is unable to make independent judgments as to matters involving medical expertise; thus, the weight which it gives to such testimony must depend on its estimation of the knowledge, skill, and veracity of the witness. It follows that the plaintiff had a right that the jury be given some basis for arriving at such an estimation intelligently. The defendants\u2019 stipulation as to Dr. Moore\u2019s expertise merely removed the necessity for the trial judge to make a ruling on whether the witness would be allowed to testify as an expert. Credibility is quite another matter. Of course, it remains within the province of the trial judge to prevent protracted questioning in regard to qualifications after there has been a stipulation that the witness is an expert.\nPlaintiff\u2019s assignment of error that he was prejudiced by the misconduct of a juror is abandoned on appeal. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.\nIt is unnecessary to discuss plaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Yarborough, Blanchard, Tucker & Denson, by Charles F. Blanchard for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Smith, Anderson, Dorsett, Blount & Ragsdale, by Willis Smith, Jr., for defendants-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM H. DOTSON v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION and WILLIAM LOWNDES CAIN\nNo. 7010SC437\n(Filed 16 December 1970)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 49\u2014 failure of record to show what excluded testimony would have been\nThe Court of Appeals cannot determine whether the exclusion of testimony was prejudicial error where counsel made no attempt to have the excluded testimony entered on the record.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 50\u2014 stipulation that witness is expert in orthopedic surgery \u2014 exclusion of testimony as to witness\u2019 qualifications\nIn this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident, the trial court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff\u2019s expert medical witness to define his specialty (orthopedic surgery) for the jury or to state the length of his practice, notwithstanding defendants had stipulated that the witness was an expert in orthopedic surgery, since plaintiff was entitled to present evidence of the medical expert\u2019s qualifications to aid the jury in determining his credibility as a medical witness.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bailey, Judge of the Superior Court, 17 November 1969 Session, Wake Superior Court.\nPlaintiff instituted this civil action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained on 24 July 1965, when an automobile, registered in the name of the corporate defendant, and allegedly being operated by the individual defendant within the scope of his employment as an agent of the corporate defendant, collided with the rear end of the plaintiff\u2019s automobile, by reason of the alleged negligence of the individual defendant. The defendants filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, and pleading contributory negligence in bar of plaintiff\u2019s action.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: On 24 July 1965, plaintiff was proceeding northwardly on U. S. Highway 301, south of Weldon, North Carolina; the automobile operated by the defendant Cain was following the plaintiff\u2019s automobile at a distance of 200-250 feet; the weather was clear, the road dry, and the traffic heavy; the plaintiff stopped behind an automobile driven by one Smith, to allow the vehicle in front of the Smith vehicle to make a left turn; the plaintiff\u2019s stop was not sudden and plaintiff gave a hand signal; that, after skidding a distance of 175-200 feet, the defendant\u2019s automobile collided with the rear end of the plaintiff\u2019s automobile, with force sufficient to knock it a distance of 30 feet into the Smith vehicle; that no luggage was carried in the back seat of plaintiff\u2019s automobile; that plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries and was still subject to frequent pain at the time of the trial; that plaintiff has undergone painful and costly medical treatments.\nDefendants\u2019 evidence tended to show the following: That the defendant Cain was engaged in a personal errand, and was not acting as the agent of the corporate defendant; that the plaintiff\u2019s rear window was completely obstructed with luggage; that the plaintiff did not stop, but was moving at the time of the collision; that the defendant was unable to swerve to the left because of oncoming traffic, or to the right because of a telephone pole; that the defendant braked as hard as he could and then \u201ceased\u201d into the plaintiff\u2019s automobile, with very slight impact; that defendant did not see plaintiff give a hand signal; that immediately after the collision, plaintiff stated to the defendant that no one in his car was injured, except plaintiff\u2019s daughter, whose nose was bleeding.\nDefendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, was denied.\nThe jury answered in the negative the question, \u201cWas the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant William Lowndes Cain?\u201d, upon which verdict judgment was entered for the defendants.\nYarborough, Blanchard, Tucker & Denson, by Charles F. Blanchard for plaintiff-appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Dorsett, Blount & Ragsdale, by Willis Smith, Jr., for defendants-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0123-01",
  "first_page_order": 147,
  "last_page_order": 149
}