{
  "id": 8553646,
  "name": "LARRY EDWARD MANESS v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS; - and - DANIEL ALEXANDER MANESS, JR. v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maness v. Bullins",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319SC612",
  "first_page": "386",
  "last_page": "388",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 386"
    }
  ],
  "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": "145 S.E. 2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551507
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 750",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556104
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3804,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6183616610204617e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8210729660300659
    },
    "sha256": "ae6ac0c8d8d7f7bf4b60b4242dac569c89d26a538f4810bbb7ff1c5537ffe6da",
    "simhash": "1:a422175e723e80d6",
    "word_count": 629
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LARRY EDWARD MANESS v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS \u2014 and \u2014 DANIEL ALEXANDER MANESS, JR. v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThese cases have been tried before a jury three times. After the first trial, upon appeal by the plaintiffs, this Court ordered a new trial. Maness v. Bullins, 11 N.C. App. 567, 181 S.E. 2d 750 (1971). After the second trial, upon appeal by the plaintiffs, this Court ordered a new trial. Maness v. Bullins, 15 N.C. App. 473, 190 S.E. 2d 233 (1972). After the third trial, upon appeal by the defendants, it becomes necessary again to order a new trial. We indulge in the hope that the fourth trial will terminate this litigation and let the courts move on to less time worn controversies.\nDuring the selection of the jury to hear the evidence in this case, Mr. Burton, counsel for plaintiffs, asked the prospective jurors the following question: \u201cIs there any member of the jury who feels that his liability insurance rates will go up if he returns a verdict against the defendants in this case?\u201d The trial judge instructed the jurors that they were not to consider the question or any feature of it in this case.. At the earliest time available for such motion defendants moved for a mistrial. Their motion was denied and they assign this as error.\nSuch a question could only be calculated to instill in the minds of the jurors that defendants have adequate liability insurance to respond in damages. The' existence of insurance covering a defendant\u2019s liability in an action for damages by reason of defendant\u2019s negligence is wholly irrelevant to the issues involved. Where reference is made indicating directly that defendant has liability insurance, it is prejudicial, and should not be permitted over defendant\u2019s objection thereto. Fincher v. Rhyne, 266 N.C. 64, 145 S.E. 2d 316. The North Carolina courts have adhered to the rule that evidence or mention of insurance is not permitted. Fincher v. Rhyne, supra.\nNew trial.\nJudges Hedrick and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton, for the plaintiffs.",
      "Coltrane & Gavin, by W. E. Gavin, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LARRY EDWARD MANESS v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS \u2014 and \u2014 DANIEL ALEXANDER MANESS, JR. v. RONALD CLYDE BULLINS and CLYDE COLUMBUS BULLINS\nNo. 7319SC612\n(Filed 12 September 1973)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 48; Automobiles \u00a7 45 \u2014 damages action for negligent operation of vehicle \u2014 reference to liability insurance \u2014 error\nThe existence of insurance covering a defendant\u2019s liability in an action for damages by reason of defendant\u2019s negligence is ' wholly irrelevant to issues involved, and a reference indicating directly that defendant has liability insurance is prejudicial and should not be permitted over defendant\u2019s objection thereto; therefore, in an. action for damages allegedly sustained as a result of defendant\u2019s negligent operation of a motor vehicle, defendant is entitled to a new trial where, during the selection of the jury, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel asked the prospective jurors, \u201cIs there any member of the jury who feels that his liability insurance rates will go up if he returns a verdict against the defendants in this case?\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Seay, Judge, 19 February 1973 Session of Superior Court held, in Randolph County.\nThe minor plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger. The adult plaintiff, father of the minor plaintiff, seeks to recover damages for the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of his son\u2019s injuries.\nThe jury answered the negligence issue in each case favorable to the plaintiff. It awarded $3,000.00 damages in th\u00e9 minor\u2019s case and no damages in the father\u2019s case.\nBy a separate appeal the plaintiff father seeks a new trial on the issue of damages only in his case.\nDefendant, in his appeal, seeks a new trial on all issues in both cases.\nOttway Burton, for the plaintiffs.\nColtrane & Gavin, by W. E. Gavin, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0386-01",
  "first_page_order": 410,
  "last_page_order": 412
}