{
  "id": 11303803,
  "name": "ROBERT EARL CARDER v. MITCHELL RAY HENSON and THOMAS MACK HENSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carder v. Henson",
  "decision_date": "1974-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7429SC463",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "320",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 318"
    }
  ],
  "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": "128 S.E. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553047
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0350-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 4235,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3945073631705941
    },
    "sha256": "4f37bce360218fecf564a0161e1e277410eb7e663505bdbb25821df500952cc0",
    "simhash": "1:8667623c0be58bfd",
    "word_count": 681
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT EARL CARDER v. MITCHELL RAY HENSON and THOMAS MACK HENSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff contends the trial court committed error by signing the summary judgment in favor of the defendants based upon the release executed by the plaintiff.\nPlaintiff contends that when he signed the release, he was under the impression that the release was only for: (1) money to enable plaintiff to obtain an automobile; and (2) payment for medical expenses. Plaintiff contends that in response to a question concerning coverage of future medical expenses, he was told by the insurance representative that, \u201cIf anything comes up concerning your health, it will be taken care of in the future.\u201d\nThe record reveals that the plaintiff is well educated, having finished high school and completed commercial courses. The plaintiff stated:\n\u201cI said I read and understood this Release, and it says, \u2018and all consequential damages on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown personal injury, death and property damage,\u2019 I read that before I signed it. And I knew it covered personal injury.\u201d\nPlaintiff has admitted execution of the release, and it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove any matter in avoidance. Matthews v. Hill, 2 N.C. App. 350, 163 S.E. 2d 7. Plaintiff stated that he \u201cread the release and understood it.\u201d From the facts presented, no fraud is shown which would vitiate the release.\n\u201cA release executed by the injured party and based on a valuable consideration is a complete defense to an action for damages for the injuries and where the execution of such release is admitted or established by the evidence it is necessary for the plaintiff (releasor) to prove the matter in avoidance.\u201d Caudill v. Manufacturing Co., 258 N.C. 99, 128 S.E. 2d 128.\nPlaintiff has failed to plead or offer evidence of any matter which would successfully nullify the release. The trial court properly allowed defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. The judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hamrick and Hamrick, by J. Nat Hamrick, for the plaintiff.",
      "Hamrick & Bowen, by James M. Bowen, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT EARL CARDER v. MITCHELL RAY HENSON and THOMAS MACK HENSON\nNo. 7429SC463\n(Filed 3 July 1974)\nTorts \u00a7 7 \u2014 release of insurer \u2014 bar to subsequent action against insured\nIn an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff when defendant struck the rear end of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, the trial court properly directed verdict for defendant where the evidence tended to show that an employee of defendant\u2019s liability insurance carrier approached plaintiff in the hospital, plaintiff executed a release in exchange for $2300, plaintiff was well educated and he testified that he had read and understood the release, and there was no showing of fraud which would vitiate the release.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Webb, Judge, 14 January 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Rutherford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 13 June 1974.\nOn 29 November 1971, plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision when defendant struck the rear end of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, which had stopped in compliance with an extended stop sign on a school bus. Plaintiff suffered injuries including a fracture of the lumbar spine, a fractured ankle and a lumbar sprain.\nWhile convalescing in the hospital, plaintiff was approached by one Gerry F. Huntley, an employee of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, carrier of the liability insurance of the defendant. On 8 December 1971, plaintiff executed a release in exchange for $2,300.00.\nPlaintiff later filed a complaint alleging that as a result of defendant\u2019s negligence, plaintiff was seriously injured and received permanent injuries. Plaintiff prayed for relief in the amount of $50,000.00 for personal injuries and $2,000.00 damages for the destruction of his automobile.\nDefendants\u2019 answer denied plaintiff\u2019s allegations and pleaded the release signed on 8 December 1971 in bar of plaintiff\u2019s right to recover in this action. Defendants then moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.\nOn 16 January 1974, the trial court allowed defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment, dismissed plaintiff\u2019s action and taxed the costs of the action against the plaintiff.\nPlaintiff appealed to this Court.\nHamrick and Hamrick, by J. Nat Hamrick, for the plaintiff.\nHamrick & Bowen, by James M. Bowen, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 352
}
