{
  "id": 8548450,
  "name": "PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD, Individually, and EDDIE BARFIELD, JESSIE CAROLYN BARFIELD, AND HELEN LANIER (Minors), by and through their Guardian ad Litem, PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD v. LANCE CORPORAL PAUL LESLIE FORTINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barfield v. Fortine",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 728SC261",
  "first_page": "178",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 178"
    }
  ],
  "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": 331,
    "char_count": 5473,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "ada5c6f1e2c50f16d3bbfc395652a3d1455503fab913ae8f30185306fb755b0a",
    "simhash": "1:1a5d18aff356a3c8",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD, Individually, and EDDIE BARFIELD, JESSIE CAROLYN BARFIELD, AND HELEN LANIER (Minors), by and through their Guardian ad Litem, PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD v. LANCE CORPORAL PAUL LESLIE FORTINE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS. Judge.\nPlaintiffs first assign as error the failure of the court to set the verdict aside as being contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence. Appellants concede that this motion is addressed to the discretion of the court. They direct us to nothing indicating abuse of discretion nor do we find any in the record. The minor plaintiffs showed no damages other than their medical bills. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAssignments of error Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are directed to certain portions of the charge of the court. The exceptions do not give us any indication of what the appellants contend the court should have charged, nor does the brief cite any authority to support appellants\u2019 position. Nevertheless, we have carefully examined the charge and find no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.\nAppellants\u2019 remaining assignments of error raise the question of whether an issue on Pennie Barfield\u2019s contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. The collision occurred as the two cars were approaching the intersection of U. S. Highway 258 and Rural Paved Road 1101. Both cars were proceeding in a northerly direction and each was being operated within the speed limit. The collision occurred as defendant was attempting to pass Pennie Barfield. There were solid yellow lines in the right lane of traffic at the area, but there is no evidence clearly indicating exactly where the collision occurred with respect to the solid line. There was evidence that at the time of impact the front of the Barfield car was in the left lane of traffic, and the defendant was in the left lane passing. Pennie Barfield testified that she first saw defendant\u2019s car when it was some 300 yards behind her, that she turned on her signal lights and reduced her speed to make a turn, and that \u201c[t]he next time I saw his car was when I struck him.\u201d We think this evidence is sufficient to allow, but not compel, the jury to find that Pennie Barfield was contributorily negligent. The issue was properly submitted to the jury.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS. Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Turner and Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison, for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Wallace, Langley, Barwick and Llewellyn, by P. C. Bar-wick, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD, Individually, and EDDIE BARFIELD, JESSIE CAROLYN BARFIELD, AND HELEN LANIER (Minors), by and through their Guardian ad Litem, PENNIE LANIER BARFIELD v. LANCE CORPORAL PAUL LESLIE FORTINE\nNo. 728SC261\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Trial \u00a7 52\u2014 setting aside verdict \u2014 inadequate award\nTrial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside a verdict awarding minor plaintiffs the amounts of their medical expenses.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 80\u2014 turning vehicle \u2014 contributory negligence\nIssue of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury where there was evidence tending to show that the accident occurred while defendant was attempting to pass plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, and that the front of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle was in the left lane at the time of impact, and plaintiff testified that she first saw defendant\u2019s car when it was some 300 yards behind her, that she turned on her signal lights and reduced her speed to make a turn, and that the next time she saw defendant\u2019s car was when she struck it.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Tillery, Judge, 4 October 1971 Civil Session, Superior Court, Greene County.\nAll plaintiffs were occupants of an automobile owned and driven by Pennie Lanier Barfield. All of them except Pennie Barfield were minors. Pennie Barfield individually and as guardian ad litem brought this action to recover damages to her automobile and damages for personal injuries to her and the minor plaintiffs, allegedly sustained as the result of the negligent operation of his automobile by defendant. Defendant denied negligence, pleaded the contributory negligence of Pen-nie Barfield, counterclaimed for the damages to his automobile, and by way of cross action against Pennie Barfield asked that she be made an additional party defendant for contribution. As to the cross action for contribution, Pennie Barfield moved for summary judgment alleging that the minor plaintiffs Jessie Carolyn Barfield and Helen Lanier were her daughters and could not maintain an action against their parent to recover for negligent injury. The motion was allowed and no exception was taken. When the matter came on for trial, Eddie Barfield, stepson of Pennie Barfield, moved to amend the pleadings to show that he was not a minor and was capable of bringing his action in his own name. The motion was allowed, and, by stipulation, the cause of action of Eddie Barfield was severed for trial from the other plaintiffs because of the existence of the cross action over and against the additional defendant Pennie Bar-field. The matter proceeded to trial upon the claim of Pennie Barfield and the minor plaintiffs and the counterclaim of defendant. At the conclusion of all the evidence, plaintiff Pennie Barfield moved for a directed verdict on defendant\u2019s counterclaim, and the motion was allowed. Defendant did not except. The jury answered the issues of defendant\u2019s negligence and Pennie Barfield\u2019s contributory negligence in the affirmative and awarded Helen Lanier $11 as damages for her personal injuries and Jessie Carolyn Barfield $13 as damages for her personal injuries. In each instance the amount awarded was the total medical bill. Plaintiffs appealed.\nTurner and Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison, for plaintiff appellants.\nWallace, Langley, Barwick and Llewellyn, by P. C. Bar-wick, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0178-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 204
}