{
  "id": 8556445,
  "name": "WILLIAM HARRY CHIPPS, JR. v. MONTY DAVIS RACKLEY and JO ANN GAINEY RACKLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chipps v. Rackley",
  "decision_date": "1974-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 745DC174",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "449",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 448"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3372,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.609,
    "sha256": "64f5d9e61a0a99921230101e327c59e7d58752e92baba405df40a62e630cf082",
    "simhash": "1:3e8c70f3ac569fff",
    "word_count": 532
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Morris concurs.",
      "Judge Campbell dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM HARRY CHIPPS, JR. v. MONTY DAVIS RACKLEY and JO ANN GAINEY RACKLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on the counterclaim was properly denied. The case was one for the jury. Careful consideration of the charge, however, leads us to the conclusion that, although the judge fully recapitulated the evidence and properly declared the law in general terms, there was an insufficient application of the law to the facts of the case then being tried. Additionally, upon retrial, since the application of the family purpose doctrine has been admitted, the judge should make it clear that any negligence of defendant Monty Rackley bars recovery by Jo Ann Rackley.\nNew trial.\nJudge Morris concurs.\nJudge Campbell dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William K. Rhodes, Jr., by Jay D. Hoekenbury for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith & Spivey by Jerry L. Spivey for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM HARRY CHIPPS, JR. v. MONTY DAVIS RACKLEY and JO ANN GAINEY RACKLEY\nNo. 745DC174\n(Filed 1 May 1974)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 90\u2014 automobile collision case \u2014 insufficiency of instructions Trial court\u2019s application of the law to the facts in this automobile collision case was not sufficient to instruct the jury properly.\nJudge Campbell dissents.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barefoot, District Court Judge, 30 July 1973 Session of District Court held in New Hanover County.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. One of the vehicles involved was driven by defendant Monty Rackley and owned by his stepmother, defendant Jo Ann Rackley. Defendants counterclaimed for damages for personal injury and property damage, respectively.\nPlaintiff offered evidence tending to show the following. Plaintiff, a Wilmington police officer, was responding to an emergency call to assist a fellow officer and traveling north on Carolina Beach Road at approximately 55 miles an hour. The police cruiser\u2019s blue light and siren were on. Carolina Beach Road has two northbound lanes, two southbound lanes and a center lane for left and right turns. Just prior to the accident, plaintiff\u2019s vehicle was in the inside northbound lane. Defendant Monty Rackley was proceeding north in a parking lane in front of a drive-in restaurant located on the east side of Carolina Beach Road. Defendant turned left and headed west across Carolina Beach Road into the path of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle. Plaintiff\u2019s car struck defendant\u2019s car in the left side resulting in serious injuries to plaintiff.\nDefendants\u2019 evidence indicated the following. Defendant Monty Rackley who was driving an automobile owned by defendant Jo Ann Rackley turned right onto Carolina Beach Road from a drive-in restaurant parking lane. He gradually eased into the inside northbound lane and then into the turn lane. Defendant flashed his left signal light in conjunction with each lane change. Again after giving a left turn signal, defendant finally proceeded to turn left from the center lane and was struck by plaintiff\u2019s vehicle. Defendant denied seeing a blue light or hearing a siren before the accident. As a result of injuries sustained in the wreck, defendant Monty Rackley incurred medical expenses and was unable to work for a week. Defendant Jo Ann Rackley\u2019s automobile was badly damaged.\nThe jury found plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount. It awarded Jo Ann Gainey Rackley $3,000.00 on her counterclaim but did not award damages to Monty Rackley.\nWilliam K. Rhodes, Jr., by Jay D. Hoekenbury for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith & Spivey by Jerry L. Spivey for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 476,
  "last_page_order": 477
}