{
  "id": 8551172,
  "name": "LUCY G. BRYANT, Administratrix of the Estate of WILLIE BRYANT v. WILLIAM D. BALLANCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryant v. Ballance",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 717SC496",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "183",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 181"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566260
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0728-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565899
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 754",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621703
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0754-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560549
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623395
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624422
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 S.E. 2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560547
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0707-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 6238,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8260423191032394e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8387728396520415
    },
    "sha256": "78adf3f0dc7f76f18c24d60a672653e20c46cb3cadba0e0167b992dcfa81f313",
    "simhash": "1:223475f37637edb2",
    "word_count": 1008
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LUCY G. BRYANT, Administratrix of the Estate of WILLIE BRYANT v. WILLIAM D. BALLANCE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nIn her first assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the court erred in admitting certain evidence by defendant for that the evidence violated G.S. 8-51, the \u201cDead Man\u2019s Statute.\u201d Assuming, arguendo, that the challenged testimony did violate the statute, it was rendered admissible when the sister of intestate, as plaintiff\u2019s witness, testified that defendant was driving and that he was not intoxicated. This opened the door for defendant\u2019s version of the matter. Pearce v. Barham, 267 N.C. 707, 149 S.E. 2d 22 (1966) ; Carswell v. Greene, 253 N.C. 266, 116 S.E. 2d 801 (1960). The assignment of error is overruled.\nPlaintiff alleges error in the admission of opinion testimony of the witness Barnes as to the intoxication of defendant shortly before the accident. Barnes testified that he went to intestate\u2019s home around 11:45 p.m. with intestate and defendant ; that while there he and defendant, as well as others, drank beer and whiskey; that he got drunk and went to sleep on the front porch of intestate\u2019s sister\u2019s house; that he saw defendant early the next morning (shortly before the accident); that he had occasion to observe defendant during the course of the night and the next morning and, in his opinion, defendant was intoxicated that morning.\nWe hold that the evidence was admissible. A lay witness is competent to testify whether, in his opinion, a person was drunk or sober on a given occasion on which he observed the person. The conditions under which the witness observed the person, and the opportunity to observe him, go to the weight, not the admissibility of the testimony. State v. Dawson, 228 N.C. 85, 44 S.E. 2d 527 (1947). See also State v. Mills, 268 N.C. 142, 150 S.E. 2d 13 (1966). Plaintiff contends that witness Barnes should have been allowed only to state what he observed defendant do and how defendant acted and that it should have been left to the jury, upon the description provided by the witness, to conclude if defendant was intoxicated. Plaintiff further contends that when the witness admitted that he was intoxicated, this disqualified him as a matter of law to render an opinion as to whether another was intoxicated. We disagree with these contentions; they relate to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony. State v. Dawson, supra.\nPlaintiff contends that there was error in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. We disagree with this contention. There is ample evidence in the record to support the submission of the issue and indeed it would have been error for the judge not to have done so, since the issue was raised in the pleadings and supported by the evidence. \u201cIf different inferences may be drawn from the evidence on the issue of contributory negligence, some favorable to the plaintiff and others to the defendant, it is a case for the jury to determine (Citations).\u201d Wilson v. Camp, 249 N.C. 754, 107 S.E. 2d 743 (1959). See Weatherman v. Weatherman, 270 N.C. 130, 153 S.E. 2d 860 (1967); Boyd v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 728, 153 S.E. 2d 484 (1967).\nWe have considered plaintiff\u2019s other assignments of error but finding them without merit, they are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Farris and Thomas by Allen G. Thomas for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Narron, Holdford and Babb by William H. Holdford for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LUCY G. BRYANT, Administratrix of the Estate of WILLIE BRYANT v. WILLIAM D. BALLANCE\nNo. 717SC496\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 11 \u2014 wrongful death action \u2014 evidence relating to intestate\u2019s knowledge of defendant\u2019s intoxication \u2014 effect of Dead Man\u2019s Statute\nIn an action for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate who was killed while riding in an automobile operated by the defendant, defendant\u2019s testimony that the intestate knew of defendant\u2019s intoxication but continued to ride with him was rendered admissible, despite the Dead Man\u2019s Statute, when the plaintiff\u2019s own witness testified that the defendant was not intoxicated, such testimony opening the door for defendant\u2019s version of the matter. G.S. 8-51.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 44 \u2014 nonexpert opinion testimony \u2014 evidence of intoxication\nA lay witness is competent to testify whether, in his opinion, a person was drunk or sober on a given occasion on which he observed the person; the conditions under which the witness observed the person, and the opportunity to observe him, go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 94 \u2014 wrongful death action \u2014 intoxication of driver \u2014 contributory negligence of intestate\nIn an action for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate who was killed while riding in an automobile driven by the defendant, evidence that the intestate knew of defendant\u2019s intoxication but continued to ride with him was properly submitted to the Jury on the issue of the intestate\u2019s contributory negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Tillery, Judge, 1 March 1971 Session of Wilson Superior Court.\nThis in an action for wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate who was killed allegedly while riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, while operating his automobile on U. S. Highway 301 in Wilson County, ran off the road, back across the road, and overturned with resultant fatal injuries to her intestate.\nIn his answer, defendant denied that he was the operator of the car. He further alleged that at the time of the accident he was under the influence of intoxicants and that if he was driving, plaintiff\u2019s intestate knew of defendant\u2019s intoxication at the time intestate voluntarily entered defendant\u2019s car, made no protest as to defendant\u2019s condition, and continued to ride with defendant with full knowledge of his condition; therefore, intestate was contributorily negligent.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to support her allegations. It further tended to show that neither intestate nor defendant was under the influence of any intoxicant. Defendant\u2019s evidence showed that both men were intoxicated shortly before the accident.\nThe jury answered the issue of negligence in favor of plaintiff but answered the issue of contributory negligence in favor of defendant. From judgment denying recovery, plaintiff appealed.\nFarris and Thomas by Allen G. Thomas for plaintiff appellant.\nNarron, Holdford and Babb by William H. Holdford for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 205,
  "last_page_order": 207
}