{
  "id": 8554915,
  "name": "MARK WILLIS PATTERSON, by his Guardian Ad Litem, F. L. PATTERSON v. W. H. WEATHERSPOON and W. H. WEATHERSPOON, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patterson ex rel. Patterson v. Weatherspoon",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7210SC546",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 S.E. 2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625823
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550443
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550725
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "725"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573719
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "56"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "167"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "104"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 395,
    "char_count": 5800,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31187011289075156
    },
    "sha256": "51c1dc4d016bb96747c39dcc4895afd517d8a00be7717e77ac1025204bb10da1",
    "simhash": "1:5f42746f257db8cf",
    "word_count": 998
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARK WILLIS PATTERSON, by his Guardian Ad Litem, F. L. PATTERSON v. W. H. WEATHERSPOON and W. H. WEATHERSPOON, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\n\u201cUnder G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(a), detailed fact-pleading is not required. \u2018A pleading complies with the rule if it gives sufficient notice of the events or transactions which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to understand the nature of it and the basis for it, to file a responsive pleading, and \u2014 by using the rules provided for obtaining pretrial discovery \u2014 to get any additional information he may need to prepare for trial.\u2019 Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 104, 176 S.E. 2d 161, 167. \u2018Under \u201cnotice pleading\u201d a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted \u201cto enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought.\u201d \u2019 Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 56, 187 S.E. 2d 721, 725. If a complaint meets these basic requirements, and does not show upon its face that there is an insurmountable bar to recovery on the claim alleged, it is not subject to dismissal under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) (6). Sutton v. Duke, supra; Cassels v. Motor Co., 10 N.C. App. 51, 178 S.E. 2d 12.\u201d Lewis v. Air Service, Inc., 16 N.C. App. 317, 192 S.E. 2d 6 (1972).\nIt is our opinion that when viewed in the light of these principles, the complaint in question is sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The complaint unquestionably places defendant on notice as to the nature and basis of the claim being asserted against him. The claim is for personal injuries and the basis of the claim is negligence. The events and transactions which give rise to the claim are sufficiently alleged. Our attention has been directed to no insurmountable bar to recovery which appears on the face of the claim alleged. In our opinion there is none. While the relationship alone does not make a father answerable for the wrongful acts of his minor child, a father who is aware, or by the exercise of due care should be aware of the dangerous propensities of his child in the use of the instrumentality and who fails to prohibit, restrict or supervise the child in the use thereof, may be liable based on his own negligence for injury to another caused by the child\u2019s misuse of the instrumentality. Lane v. Chatham, 251 N.C. 400, 111 S.E. 2d 598 (1959).\nNothing appears upon the face of the complaint which would preclude plaintiff\u2019s proving facts sufficient to support a recovery on this, or perhaps other theories.\nThe order dismissing the complaint is\nReversed.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reynolds, Farmer & Russell by Ted R. Reynolds and E. Cader Howard for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith, Anderson, Blou/nt & Mitchell by John L. Jernigan for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARK WILLIS PATTERSON, by his Guardian Ad Litem, F. L. PATTERSON v. W. H. WEATHERSPOON and W. H. WEATHERSPOON, JR.\nNo. 7210SC546\n(Filed 29 December 1972)\nParent and Child \u00a7 8\u2014 injury from golf club swung by minor \u2014 liability of the father \u2014 sufficiency of complaint\nIn an action by a minor plaintiff to recover for injuries sustained when he was struck in the eye by a golf club swung by defendant\u2019s eight-year-old son, plaintiff\u2019s complaint was sufficient to state a claim for relief against defendant based on defendant\u2019s alleged negligence in allowing his son to use the golf club unattended, uncautioned and uninstructed at a time when the minor plaintiff was standing close by.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Canaday, Judge, 13 March 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.\nPlaintiff, Mark Willis Patterson, a minor, instituted this action through his guardian ad litem to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when he was struck in the left eye by a golf club. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint, except where quoted, is summarized as follows:\nOn 21 June 1970 at approximately 7:30 p.m., plaintiff saw W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr., age 8, and his father, W. H. Weather-spoon, the defendant, in a vacant lot near his home. The defendant handed a full-sized golf putter and golf ball to his son and told him to \u201cputt around some.\u201d While defendant was recovering golf balls some two hundred feet away,\n\u201c . . . the minor plaintiff was standing behind W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr. observing when the minor W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr. drew the club back swiftly into a back-swing and then hit or drove the golf ball rather than putt it whereupon as he followed through with his swing the steel head of the putter hit the minor plaintiff directly in the left eye causing that eye to burst open.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s conduct was alleged to be negligent in that:\n\u201c(a) He wilfully and negligently handed an adult sized golf club to the minor W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr. together with a golf ball and encouraged or directed him to play with these items but at no time instructed him in the use thereof or cautioned him regarding the care to be used in swinging that golf club.\n(b) He negligently and carelessly continued to allow his son, W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr. to use the golf club unattended, uncautioned and uninstructed at a time when the minor plaintiff was present and in close proximity to the minor defendant, W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr.\n(c) He negligently and carelessly left the area where his son, W. H. Weatherspoon, Jr. had the club and ball and where the minor plaintiff stood and proceeded some 200 feet away to further his own activity and recreation without regard to the safety and care of the minor plaintiff at a time when he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that he had created a dangerous situation by leaving his son unattended, uninstructed and uncautioned regarding the use of said golf club with the minor plaintiff standing close by.\u201d\nPlaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal entered pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\nReynolds, Farmer & Russell by Ted R. Reynolds and E. Cader Howard for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Blou/nt & Mitchell by John L. Jernigan for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 263
}