{
  "id": 8549560,
  "name": "CLYDE C. HARTSELL, JR. v. LEWIS CALVIN STRICKLAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hartsell v. Strickland",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7519SC172",
  "first_page": "68",
  "last_page": "70",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 68"
    }
  ],
  "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": 337,
    "char_count": 5093,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5916105598991863e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8186114325584233
    },
    "sha256": "1d3ecf68c64b3721a50ccefea87e7bda3fcbc97f4760f10b8c74075a64e1beb1",
    "simhash": "1:b727a29e5b45b67b",
    "word_count": 837
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CLYDE C. HARTSELL, JR. v. LEWIS CALVIN STRICKLAND"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe find no prejudicial error in the exclusion of one of the witnesses\u2019 estimate of defendant\u2019s speed. Even if it had been shown that the witness had a reasonable opportunity to judge defendant\u2019s speed, the excluded answer was favorable to defendant and not to plaintiff.\nThe remaining issue is whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, is sufficient to justify a verdict in plaintiff\u2019s favor. The evidence, viewed in this manner, tended to show the following.\nAt approximately 3:30 on the afternoon of 10 June 1970, plaintiff, a Snap-On-Tool salesman, Don Steele and William Haynes were examining a compressor attached to Steele\u2019s pickup truck. Steele\u2019s truck was parked on the shoulder of a rural paved road 18 feet in width. The truck was near or on the edge of the pavement. It was facing a southerly direction and was 200 feet to 300 feet from the intersection of Deal Road and Highway 152. The posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour. It was a clear day and there was nothing to obstruct the view between the intersection and where the men were standing.\nThe men were going to hook up the impact gun to the air compressor to see if the compressor had the necessary volume to work the air gun properly. They cranked up the compressor and began examining it. It built up a head of pressure. Suddenly there was a loud explosion. Plaintiff, who was standing on the edge of the road at the left front of the compressor, was startled by the explosion and jumped backwards about two feet toward the center of the highway. As soon as plaintiff jumped back he was struck by the right front fender of defendant\u2019s automobile, which was proceeding in a southerly direction.\nWhile examining the air compressor plaintiff was standing at the left front of the compressor, farthest from the intersection. Steele was beside plaintiff and toward the middle of the compressor, and Haynes was on the same side towards the rear of the compressor and nearest to the intersection. When plaintiff jumped back onto the highway, defendant was approximately within a car length of plaintiff. Defendant stopped his car a few feet from the point of impact after veering to the left partially across the center line of the highway. Plaintiff did not see defendant\u2019s automobile before the impact. Prior to impact there was no horn nor other warning that defendant\u2019s automobile was approaching. Defendant did not see plaintiff until he was less \u00a1than one car length away. Defendant did not decrease his speed by applying his brakes until about the time of the collision.\nThere was no evidence that defendant was travelling at an excessive speed under the existing circumstances. In fact, the evidence tends to negate excessive speed. Prior to the time plaintiff jumped into the path of' defendant\u2019s car there was no 'apparant hazard which would have caused a reasonably prudent motorist to have operated at a slower speed than that indicated by the evidence. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant failed to maintain a proper lookout and that such failure was a proximate cause of the accident. That defendant did not sound his \u00a1horn does not help plaintiff. He did not move onto the highway 'because he was unaware of defendant\u2019s approaching vehicle. His own. evidence discloses that his sudden removal from a place of safety onto the highway was the result of an involuntary reaction to the unexpected loud noise. Certainly defendant could not have anticipated that plaintiff would propel himself into the front of defendant\u2019s car so suddenly that defendant could do nothing to avoid the accident.\nThe trial judge correctly concluded that plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient to go to the jury.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hartsell, Hartsell & Mills, P.A., by Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Williams, Willeford, Boger & Grady, by John Hugh Williams, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLYDE C. HARTSELL, JR. v. LEWIS CALVIN STRICKLAND\nNo. 7519SC172\n(Filed 21 May 1975)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 62\u2014 pedestrian jumping into highway \u2014 directed verdict for driver proper\nIn an action to recover for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by defendant\u2019s automobile, the trial court properly allowed defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict where the evidence tended to show that plaintiff jumped from the side of the highway into defendant\u2019s lane of travel when plaintiff was frightened by a loud noise, defendant was not traveling at an excessive speed, and defendant did not fail to maintain a proper lookout.\nAppeal by plainitff from Seay, Judge. Judgment entered 3 December 1974 in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 May 1975.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him when he was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant, Lewis Calvin Strickland. Judgment was entered allowing defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\nHartsell, Hartsell & Mills, P.A., by Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nWilliams, Willeford, Boger & Grady, by John Hugh Williams, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0068-01",
  "first_page_order": 96,
  "last_page_order": 98
}
