{
  "id": 8552347,
  "name": "MARY BETH RAMSEY v. BRENDA DAVIS CHRISTIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramsey v. Christie",
  "decision_date": "1973-08-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 7327SC545",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 255"
    }
  ],
  "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": "180 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 310,
    "char_count": 5424,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35670573844266595
    },
    "sha256": "d0915eae28eba71af49dadc59bb10538f27e22edc78a145093e070c0282ae4fa",
    "simhash": "1:0e2ce8e451016165",
    "word_count": 868
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARY BETH RAMSEY v. BRENDA DAVIS CHRISTIE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns error to denial of her motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence. In this we find no error. Contrary to plaintiff\u2019s contention, defendant\u2019s evidence did not establish her negligence as a matter of law but presented a question for the jury as to whether defendant exercised the same degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances confronting her. Plaintiff\u2019s right to recover in this case depended upon the jury accepting as credible her testimony as to the events causing the collision. Plaintiff had the burden of proving defendant\u2019s negligence. There was no error in denying her motions. Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297.\nPlaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error are primarily directed to portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury. Considered contextually and as a whole the charge was free from prejudicial error. The court expressed no opinion as to which of the sharply conflicting versions of the events leading to the collision was proved, but left this for the jury to determine after correctly declaring and explaining the law arising on the conflicting evidence given in the case. From their verdict it is apparent that the jury determined that the defendant\u2019s rather than plaintiff\u2019s version was established by the evidence.\nIn the trial and judgment appealed from, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank Patton Cooke and James R. Carpenter for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hollowell, Stott & Hollowell by L. B. Hollowell, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY BETH RAMSEY v. BRENDA DAVIS CHRISTIE\nNo. 7327SC545\n(Filed 22 August 1973)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 53\u2014 sudden stop \u2014 skidding across center lane \u2014 negligence \u2014 jury question\nIn this action for damages resulting from an automobile collision, defendant\u2019s evidence did not establish her negligence as a matter of law but presented a question for the jury as to whether defendant exercised the same degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances confronting her where her evidence tended to show that she was driving in the northbound lane of a two-lane highway at about 30 mph, that immediately before the collision two northbound cars passed defendant\u2019s car, that two hitchhikers were on the side of the road, that the front car in the northbound lane stopped suddenly, causing the driver of the second car also to stop suddenly, and that defendant applied her brakes and skidded partially across the center line into the southbound lane where she came to a complete stop just before colliding with plaintiff\u2019s oncoming southbound car.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McLean, Judge, 12 February 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.\nCivil action in which plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for personal injuries and property damages resulting from a collision between automobiles operated by plaintiff and defendant. The collision occurred at approximately 1:30 p.m. on 10 July 1971 on N. C. Highway 274 at a point shortly south of Gastonia, N. C. At that point Highway 274 is a two-lane highway, with one lane for northbound and one lane for southbound traffic, the two lanes being separated by a broken white center line. The highway was straight and approximately level, the weather was clear, and the road was dry. The posted speed limit was fifty-five miles per hour. The collision occurred when defendant\u2019s northbound automobile partially crossed over the center line and struck, or was struck by, plaintiff\u2019s southbound vehicle.\nPlaintiff testified that the collision occurred under the following circumstances: Plaintiff was driving south in the southbound lane at approximately thirty-five miles per hour. As she approached the scene of the accident, she saw three cars stopped straight in the northbound lane of the road. She thought a license check was in progress. When she reached the stopped cars, defendant\u2019s car, which was the third or rear car facing plaintiff in the northbound lane, suddenly pulled out into the southbound lane. In so doing, the left front of defendant\u2019s car struck the left front and left side of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, damaging it and causing plaintiff\u2019s personal injuries.\nDefendant offered evidence to show that the collision occurred under the following circumstances: Defendant was driving north in the northbound lane at about thirty miles per hour with her three-year-old daughter as a passenger in the front seat. Immediately prior to the collision two northbound cars, traveling approximately twenty miles per hour faster than defendant\u2019s car, passed defendant\u2019s car. Two hitchhikers were on the side of the road. The front car in the northbound lane stopped suddenly, causing the driver of the second car also to apply brakes and stop suddenly. Defendant, at that time the third car in line, also applied her brakes and brought her car to a stop within a few feet of but without striking the vehicle immediately in front of her. In so doing, however, defendant\u2019s car skidded partially across the center line into the southbound lane, coming to a complete stop \u201cjust a matter of seconds before the collision\u201d with plaintiff\u2019s oncoming southbound car.\nThe jury answered the issue of negligence in defendant\u2019s favor. From judgment on the verdict dismissing her action, plaintiff appealed.\nFrank Patton Cooke and James R. Carpenter for plaintiff appellant.\nHollowell, Stott & Hollowell by L. B. Hollowell, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 279,
  "last_page_order": 282
}