{
  "id": 8553360,
  "name": "SHIRLEY HOLT WRIGHT v. LORINE WILSON HOLT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Holt",
  "decision_date": "1973-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319SC478",
  "first_page": "661",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 661"
    }
  ],
  "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": "76 S.E. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600445
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569608
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550424
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 2d 363",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565769
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559633
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "692"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5825,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.200103220099407e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7750559974732117
    },
    "sha256": "63b691f546429e2c8a0ab4831c6aceb325107d04ff4d590c847ac1a9f032b282",
    "simhash": "1:9a04ede20f4f8174",
    "word_count": 973
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHIRLEY HOLT WRIGHT v. LORINE WILSON HOLT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BALEY, Judge.\nThe plaintiff assigns as error the failure of the court below to admit into evidence the record of another case brought by the husband of the plaintiff against the defendant for personal injuries and property damage arising out of the same accident upon which the present case is based. She contends that the issue of negligence had already been determined on the prior case and that only the issue of damages should have been submitted in her case.\nPlaintiff was not a party to the prior action. She is not bound by the judgment entered in that action. Since estoppel by judgment must be mutual, plaintiff cannot assert the judgment in the prior action against the defendant as res judicata in the present case. Kayler v. Gallimore, 269 N.C. 405, 152 S.E. 2d 518; Coach Co. v. Burrell, 241 N.C. 482, 85 S.E. 2d 688.\nIn Coach Co. v. Burrell, supra at 436, 85 S.E. 2d at 692, the court dealt with the precise point raised by plaintiff: \u201cThe great weight of authority seems to be that a judgment for the plaintiff in an action growing out of an accident is not res judicata, or conclusive as to issues of negligence or contributory negligence, in a subsequent action growing out of the same accident by a different plaintiff against the same defendant.\u201d\nPlaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the court to set aside .the verdict because one of the jurors disclosed after the verdict that she had overheard the defendant make a statement in the rest room that the windshield of plaintiff\u2019s car was not broken. The record shows that the court made a careful investigation, and after a full revelation of all the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and its relevance upon the issue of negligence which was decided adversely to plaintiff, concluded that it had no prejudicial effect upon the verdict. This was a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. O\u2019Berry v. Perry, 266 N.C. 77, 145 S.E. 2d 321; Stone v. Baking Co., 257 N.C. 103, 125 S.E. 2d 363; Brown v. Products Co., 5 N.C. App. 413, 168 S.E. 2d 452.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error which relate to the charge of the court cannot be sustained. With particular reference to G.S. 20-158 which provides that vehicles must stop and yield right-of-way at through highways the court stated:\n\u201cThe test is whether or not a reasonable and careful and prudent person would have stopped and yielded the right-of-way under the circumstances as they existed.\u201d\nThe jury was clearly told that defendant\u2019s duty was reasonable care under the circumstances. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that it was misled in any respect. Cowan v. Transfer Co. and Carr v. Transfer Co., 262 N.C. 550, 138 S.E. 2d 228; Vincent v. Woody, 238 N.C. 118, 76 S.E. 2d 356.\nThe weight and credibility of the testimony was for the jury to decide. Plaintiff must now abide the result.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BALEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith & Casper, by Archie L. Smith, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHIRLEY HOLT WRIGHT v. LORINE WILSON HOLT\nNo. 7319SC478\n(Filed 11 July 1973)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 43; Judgments \u00a7 36 \u2014 action by wife \u2014 prior action by husband \u2014 same defendant \u2014 no res judicata\nIn an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between the vehicle driven by her husband and defendant\u2019s vehicle, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow into evidence the record of another action based on the same collision, but brought by plaintiff\u2019s husband against defendant, in which the issue of- negligence had already been determined, since plaintiff was not a party to the prior action and was not bound by the judgment entered in that action.\n2. Trial \u00a7 50 \u2014 statement overheard by juror \u2014 effect on verdict \u2014 refusal to set aside verdict\nIn an action to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile collision where one of the jurors disclosed after the verdict that she had heard defendant make a statement in the rest room that the windshield of plaintiff\u2019s car was not broken, the trial court concluded after investigation that the statement had no prejudicial effect on the verdict and therefore refused to set it aside.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 90 \u2014 instruction on yielding right of way \u2014 duty to use reasonable care under circumstances\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction in an automobile collision case with respect to G.S. 20-158 which provides that vehicles must stop and yield right-of-way at through highways properly told the jury that defendant\u2019s duty was reasonable care under the circumstances.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Seay, Judge, 8 January 1973 Session of Superior Court of Randolph County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision allegedly due to the negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile operated by her husband which was proceeding north on North Carolina Highway #22 approaching its intersection with rural paved road #2498. Defendant\u2019s car was on #2498 approaching the intersection with highway #22 from the east. A stop sign was erected on rural paved road #2498 governing traffic entering highway #22. The collision between the two automobiles occurred at some point within the intersection.\nBoth plaintiff and defendant offered evidence at the trial which presented somewhat conflicting versions of the accident.\nThe following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as indicated: \u201c(1) Was the plaintiff injured and damaged by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the Complaint? Answer: No. (2) What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant for personal injuries? Answer:_\u201d\nFrom judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith & Casper, by Archie L. Smith, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0661-01",
  "first_page_order": 685,
  "last_page_order": 687
}