{
  "id": 11313657,
  "name": "BETTY GRIGG HOWELL v. FLOYD GARFIELD NICHOLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Nichols",
  "decision_date": "1974-08-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7427SC469",
  "first_page": "741",
  "last_page": "745",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 741"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560805
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554703
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 40",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575248
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 753",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569848
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 889",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 529",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552206
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0529-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559360
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "54"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0049-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 457,
    "char_count": 7768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140127474613385
    },
    "sha256": "77b2c204e21eec5b0fad11f46c4b43316e00981e5900f0a02febb9a93a998902",
    "simhash": "1:8735667f74270331",
    "word_count": 1264
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BETTY GRIGG HOWELL v. FLOYD GARFIELD NICHOLS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that the court improperly excluded testimony from Dr. James A. Sanders to the effect that the pain suffered by plaintiff \u201ccould be indefinite or prolonged for an indefinite period of time.\u201d We hold that the testimony was properly excluded. The substance of Sanders\u2019 testimony is as follows. Complaining of discomfort in her neck, plaintiff came to Sanders for treatment on 7 July 1971, about three weeks after the accident. At the time, plaintiff \u201chad limitation of motion in her neck. ...\u201d and indicated \u201cdiscomfort over the medial border. The medial refers to toward the middle. This would be toward the inner part of the wing bone . . . the scapula. If you put your arm behind you, you\u2019ll probably just be . . . barely able to put your thumb in that area . . . X-rays were taken . . . and these revealed the patient had degenerative disc disease at the third and fourth cervical interspace.\u201d\nSanders prescribed medication for pain, muscle relaxant and traction. He also advised plaintiff to use heat on her neck. During a subsequent consultation on 20 September 1971, Sanders informed plaintiff that \u201cit might be some time before her pain would subside.\u201d On 10 July 1972, a year after his initial examination of plaintiff, Sanders again saw the patient. \u201cAt that time, [he] made a note that the degenerative disc disease was the primary cause of her discomfort, with a strain being superimposed to that.\u201d The patient was advised to continue using traction which she had been using intermittently. Regarding \u201cthe function and aim\u201d of the traction, Sanders explained\n\u201cthat traction applies a pull to the neck and in this way it tends to make the muscles in the neck relax. This is what causes most of the discomfort in a problem such as this. The muscles tend to tighten up and go into spasm and most of the pain is due to this. The residual pain that you have after getting the muscles to relax is due primarily to the disc problem.\u201d\nDuring another examination four months later, plaintiff was informed that Sanders \u201cthought she had had a sprain of her cervical spine superimposed upon the degenerative disc problem in her neck which she had had [several years] prior to the accident.\u201d Sanders also indicated that he \u201cdid not see objective finding to indicate permanent disability.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s evidence thus tends to show that she suffered from degenerative disc disease before the accident occurred, that this condition may have been aggravated by a cervical sprain precipitated by the collision, that although both degenerative disc disease and a cervical sprain can cause pain, the former condition was the primary cause of plaintiff\u2019s condition. Where, as here,\n\u201cthe wrongful act does not cause a diseased condition but only aggravates and increases the severity of a condition existing at the time of the injury, the injured person may recover only for such increased or augumented sufferings as are the natural and proximate result of the wrongful act, or, as otherwise stated, where a pre-existing disease is aggravated . . . the . . . recovery ... is limited to the additional injury caused by the aggravation over and above the consequences, which the pre-existing disease, running its normal course, would itself have caused if there had been no aggravation by the wrongful injury.\u201d Potts v. Howser, 274 N.C. 49, 54, 161 S.E. 2d 737 (1968), quoting 25 C.J.S., Damages, \u00a7 21, p. 661.\nPlaintiff offered no evidence tending to show either the degree and duration of pain she might be expected to experience from degenerative disc disease absent the superimposed cervical spine strain or the probable effect of the spinal sprain on the degree and duration of such pain. See Potts v. Howser, supra; Purgaron v. Dillon, 9 N.C. App. 529, 176 S.E. 2d 889 (1970). Since plaintiff\u2019s evidence does not show a reasonable certain causal relationship between the cervical spinal sprain which may have aggravated the degenerative disc condition and possible pain and suffering in the future, see Gillikin v. Burbage, 263 N.C. 317, 139 S.E. 2d 753 (1965) ; Short v. Chapman, 261 N.C. 674, 136 S.E. 2d 40 (1964) ; Johnson v. Brown, 11 N.C. App. 323, 181 S.E. 2d 321 (1971), Sanders\u2019 testimony regarding future pain was properly excluded.\nIn a related challenge, plaintiff argues that Sanders should have been permitted to testify that cervical fusion was an alternative mode of treatment \u201cto further the situation as far as Mrs. Howell is concerned,\u201d although Sanders \u201cwould not have advised it . . . because [plaintiff] did not appear to be having enough difficulty to warrant the severity of this type of treatment.\u201d The record does not indicate whether such treatment might become necessary in the future as a result of the cervical spine sprain or whether it might become necessary even if plaintiff had not suffered the sprain. Hence, the jury could not consider the possibility of future treatment in arriving at plaintiff\u2019s damages. The proffered testimony was properly excluded.\nPlaintiff also contends that she should have been allowed to state how long her vehicle had been stopped at a traffic light prior to the accident, even though the manner in which the accident happened was not in issue. Since the record does not indicate what plaintiff\u2019s response would have been, this Court cannot determine whether exclusion of the testimony was prejudicial. Gibbs v. Light Co., 268 N.C. 186, 150 S.E. 2d 207 (1966). The assignment of error is overruled.\nPlaintiff argues that the court erred in not setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial on the grounds that the damages awarded were inadequate. Plaintiff offered evidence of approximately $240 special damages. The verdict was $1,500. The record does not show that the court abused its discretion in declining to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Basil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hollowell, Stott & Hollowell, by Grady B. Stott and James C. Windham, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BETTY GRIGG HOWELL v. FLOYD GARFIELD NICHOLS\nNo. 7427SC469\n(Filed 21 August 1974)\n1. Damages \u00a7 13\u2014 aggravation of existing condition \u2014 future pain \u2014 future treatment \u2014 causation\nIn an action to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision wherein plaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that a cervical sprain suffered in the accident aggravated an existing disc condition, the trial court properly excluded a doctor\u2019s testimony that pain suffered by plaintiff could be indefinite where plaintiff offered no evidence to show the degree and duration of the pain that might be expected from the disc condition absent the superimposed cervical sprain or the probable effect of the cervical sprain on the degree and duration of such pain; also, the court properly excluded the doctor\u2019s testimony that a cervical fusion might become necessary in the future where plaintiff\u2019s evidence failed to show whether the fusion might become necessary as a result of the cervical sprain or whether it might become necessary even if plaintiff had not suffered the sprain.\n2. Trial \u00a7 52\u2014 refusal to set aside verdict\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside a verdict of $1500 in an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Snepp, Judge, 18 February 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 June 1974.\nPlaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries resulting from a collision between her automobile and one operated by defendant.\nDefendant stipulated that his negligence caused the accident. The only issue at trial was that of damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $1,500.\nBasil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff appellant.\nHollowell, Stott & Hollowell, by Grady B. Stott and James C. Windham, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0741-01",
  "first_page_order": 773,
  "last_page_order": 777
}
