{
  "id": 8550504,
  "name": "D. MURRAY BAREFOOT v. ALEX TRASK, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barefoot v. Trask",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 745SC812",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "95 S.E. 2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603277
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.601,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20589675305394253
    },
    "sha256": "08456cc0d8a1136a9f87f13a05c953e72c2c9878a79294469d9e3d42e8ee6931",
    "simhash": "1:fa4735237d942d68",
    "word_count": 750
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "D. MURRAY BAREFOOT v. ALEX TRASK, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nUpon motion by the defendant for a directed verdict the evidence of the plaintiff must be taken in the light most favorable to him and he is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Dawson v. Jennette, 278 N.C. 438, 180 S.E. 2d 121.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence, if believed, would tend to show that at the time the accident occurred the boat was passing through breaking waters en route to shore. Defendant was operating the boat at a speed of twenty miles an hour across six-foot waves in a 20 to 25 mile an hour wind. The boat bounced over the waves. Plaintiff, because he was getting wet, moved from a seat near the stern to the baitcasting platform near the bow. He shouted to defendant \u201cslow down,\u201d but defendant did not respond. Moments later, plaintiff was lifted by the movement of the boat, lost his grip on the edge of the platform, came down, and met the boat with such force that he injured his back.\nPlaintiff offered no evidence to show that defendant acted unreasonably in crossing the breakers or operated the boat at a speed greater than necessary in order to cross them. In fact, plaintiff testified that an outboard motorboat, such as the one in question, has the ability to come in continually through the waves. The case of Gilreath v. Silverman, 245 N.C. 51, 95 S.E. 2d 107, is distinguishable. There the operator of the motorboat from which plaintiff\u2019s decedent fell testified that his speed was \u201crough and reckless\u201d under existing conditions. Here we have only plaintiff\u2019s contention that speed was excessive. There was no evidence that the speed of the boat caused it to bounce with violence not attributable primarily to the rough sea. Plaintiff testified that the effect of speed \u201cdepends on the plane of the boat. . . . The more waves that you have to contend with, the more activity there is going to be with the boat going up and down.\u201d Finally, nothing in plaintiff\u2019s testimony indicates that, given the condition of the sea, he would not have been lifted by the wave and lost his seat if defendant had operated the boat differently.\nViewed in his favor, all plaintiff\u2019s evidence tends to show is that he and defendant decided to return to shore when the sea became rough. The boat entered the inlet and started crossing the breakers. It bounced on the waves and plaintiff was thrown against his seat injuring his back.\nWe hold that this evidence is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence. In so holding we do not reach the additional issues of whether plaintiff was con-tributorily negligent and whether maritime law applies to the facts in this case. The order of the trial court, granting defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict, is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murchison, Fox & Newton, by James C. Fox, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Marshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley, by Lonnie B. Williams, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. MURRAY BAREFOOT v. ALEX TRASK, JR.\nNo. 745SC812\n(Filed 18 December 1974)\nBoating \u2014 operation of boat \u2014 insufficient evidence of negligence\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence by defendant in the operation of an outboard motorboat where it tended to show only that plaintiff and defendant decided to return to shore when the ocean became rough, that defendant was operating the boat at a speed of 20 mph across six-foot waves while the boat was passing through the breakers, that plaintiff shouted to defendant to \u201cslow down\u201d but defendant did not respond, and that the boat bounced on the waves and plaintiff was thrown against his seat injuring his back.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Wells, Judge, 16 April 1974 Session of Superior Court held in New Hanover County. Heard in Court of Appeals 10 December 1974.\nThis action was filed to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered on 1 May 1969 as the result of defendant\u2019s negligent operation of a 22-foot motorboat in which plaintiff was a passenger. The incident occurred as the parties were returning from a fishing trip in the Atlantic Ocean, just east of Masonboro Inlet.\nAt the conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, which on the issue of negligence consisted solely of his own testimony, a directed verdict was entered for the defendant on grounds that the plaintiff failed to show actionable negligence and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.\nMurchison, Fox & Newton, by James C. Fox, for plaintiff appellant.\nMarshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley, by Lonnie B. Williams, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 329,
  "last_page_order": 331
}