{
  "id": 8549531,
  "name": "JOHN E. FORD v. ARNOLD V. MARSHALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ford v. Marshall",
  "decision_date": "1972-09-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7221DC664",
  "first_page": "179",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 179"
    }
  ],
  "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": "181 S.E. 2d 781",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556217
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 818",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551114
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574088,
        8574120,
        8574098,
        8574134,
        8574106
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0154-01",
        "/nc/281/0154-04",
        "/nc/281/0154-02",
        "/nc/281/0154-05",
        "/nc/281/0154-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554771
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0593-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 3472,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20587802609341316
    },
    "sha256": "14a72c4a065ae59c628813bafdde5849106fa1bb7bfb25083ac68a2754ebea8c",
    "simhash": "1:0d6d640c4e3c8887",
    "word_count": 588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN E. FORD v. ARNOLD V. MARSHALL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff alleged that his property was damaged and that he sustained personal injuries as a proximate result of the actionable negligence of the defendant in the operation of the defendant\u2019s automobile. Defendant denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in the operation of his automobile.\nThe trial judge submitted only three issues to the jury which were answered as follows:\n\u201cI. Was the plaintiff\u2019s automobile damaged and was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?\nAnswer: Yes.\nII. Did the plaintiff, by his negligence contribute to his own injury?\nAnswer: No.\nIII. What damage if any is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?\nAnswer: $2,628.00.\u201d\nDefendant assigns an error portions of the instructions to the jury and the failure of the trial judge to apply the law to the facts in the case.\nThe appellant contends, and we agree, that the trial judge committed error in the charge in that he failed to properly define negligence or proximate cause and failed to even mention foreseeability as a requisite of proximate cause. See Regan v. Player, 13 N.C. App. 593, 186 S.E. 2d 688 (1972), cert. denied, 281 N.C. 154; Ward v. Worley, 12 N.C. App. 555, 183 S.E. 2d 818 (1971) ; Keener v. Litsinger, 11 N.C. App. 590, 181 S.E. 2d 781 (1971). The trial judge also failed to instruct the jury as to what facts if found would constitute negligence and contributory negligence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).\nThere was also error in the charge on the measure of damages and the applicability of the law to the evidence relating to the issue of damages. The trial judge should have separated the issue as to damages into two parts \u2014 one related to personal injuries and the other related to property damage. The measure of damages is different as to each. The evidence as to the damages was different, and the applicability of the law to the evidence was therefore different. It is a most difficult undertaking to properly instruct the jury as to personal injury and property damage combined into one issue. Suffice it to say that the trial judge in this case did not do so.\nAppellant has other assignments of error to the charge, but they may not recur upon a new trial. For errors in the charge, the defendant is entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.\nNew Trial.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ira Julian and W. Warren S-parrow for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Wornble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by Allan R. Gitter and Roddey Lig\u00f3n, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN E. FORD v. ARNOLD V. MARSHALL\nNo. 7221DC664\n(Filed 20 September 1972)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 40\u2014 instructions on proximate cause\nThe trial court erred in failing properly to define negligence and proximate cause and in failing to mention foreseeability as a requisite of proximate cause.\n2. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 51\u2014 failure to apply law to evidence\nThe trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to what facts, if found, would constitute negligence and contributory negligence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 91\u2014 personal injury and property damage \u2014 separate issues\nIn an action arising out of an automobile accident, the trial court should have separated the issue of damages into two parts \u2014 one related to personal injuries and the other related to property damages.\nAppeal by defendant from Henderson, District Judge, 15 May 1972 Session of District Court held in Forsyth County.\nIra Julian and W. Warren S-parrow for plaintiff appellee.\nWornble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by Allan R. Gitter and Roddey Lig\u00f3n, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0179-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 204
}