{
  "id": 8555087,
  "name": "EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT, JR., Administrator of the Estate of EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT III v. R. \"BUD\" PHILLIPS, ROBERT ALLIGOOD and JOHNNY LEE SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barrett v. Phillips",
  "decision_date": "1976-04-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 753SC885",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 220"
    }
  ],
  "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": "189 S.E. 2d 590",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547594
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 900",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624192
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561041
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 6136,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.695,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3230725034548346
    },
    "sha256": "6ec0dc126fb7622e182a49dd1a89176799819ce319ef7a0ab96a20e5d76045be",
    "simhash": "1:003733200c3da64d",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT, JR., Administrator of the Estate of EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT III v. R. \u201cBUD\u201d PHILLIPS, ROBERT ALLIGOOD and JOHNNY LEE SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends the trial judge erred in granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\n\u201cThe purpose of summary judgment can be summarized as being a device to bring litigation to an early decision on the merits without the delay and expense of a trial where it can be readily demonstrated that no material facts are in issue . . . The standard for summary judgment is fixed by Rule 56(c). \u2018The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law\u2019 . . . Rule 56 is for the disposition of cases where there is no genuine issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate formal trials where only questions of law are involved. . . \u2018The determination of what constitutes a \u201cgenuine issue as to any material fact\u201d is often difficult. . . It has been said that a genuine issue is one which can be maintained by substantial evidence. Where the pleadings or proof of either party disclose that no cause of action or defense exists, a summary judgment may be granted. . . . \u2019 \u201d Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 180 S.E. 2d 823 (1971).\nProcedurally, the question in the instant case is reduced to whether or not the pleadings, together with the answers to Rule 33 Interrogatories, show any genuine issue as to any material fact, and whether any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Applying this test to the case at bar, it appears that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.\nA careful review of the record reveals that the parties were in agreement as to the material factual particulars concerning the death of Edgar Luther Barrett III. There was no \u201cgenuine issue as to any material fact.\u201d The effect of the undisputed facts was a question of law for the court to determine. See Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., supra. The question of law decided by the trial court was whether the defendants\u2019 violation of the rules, regulations, and requirements of the North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction and the North Carolina High School Athletic Association through the incorrect preparing and filing of the 1970 Master Eligibility List and their allowing Johnny Lee Smith to participate in the football game constituted actionable negligence.\nPlaintiff contends that the defendants\u2019 negligence in the preparation and filing of the 1970 Master Eligibility List and in allowing Smith to participate in the football game was the proximate cause of Barrett\u2019s death. While defendants may have violated the aforesaid rules, regulations, and requirements, we fail to perceive a causal relation between the violation and the injury resulting in the boy\u2019s death.\n\u201c[T]he principle prevails in this State that what is negligence is a question of law, and when the facts are admitted or established, the court must say whether it does or does not exist. \u2018This rule extends and applies not only to the question of negligent breach of duty, but also the feature of proximate cause. . . . \u2019 (Citations omitted).\u201d Hudson v. Transit Co., 250 N.C. 435, 108 S.E. 2d 900 (1959) ; See McNair v. Boyette, 15 N.C. App. 69, 189 S.E. 2d 590 (1972).\nFor the reasons stated above, we hold that the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mattox and Reid, P.A., by David E. Reid, Jr., and Gary B. Davis, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hogue, Hill, Jones, Nash & Lynch, by William L. Hill II, and Speight, Watson and Brewer, by William C. Brewer, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT, JR., Administrator of the Estate of EDGAR LUTHER BARRETT III v. R. \u201cBUD\u201d PHILLIPS, ROBERT ALLIGOOD and JOHNNY LEE SMITH\nNo. 753SC885\n(Filed 21 April 1976)\nSchools \u00a7 11; Negligence \u00a7 8\u2014 death of football player \u2014 use of ineligible player \u2014 proximate cause\nThere was no causal connection between the death of a high school football player allegedly caused in a collision with an ineligible player on the opposing team and defendants\u2019 negligence in the preparation and filing of the 1970 Master Eligibility List and in allowing the player who was ineligible because of age to participate in the game.\nAppeal by plaintiff from James, Judge. Judgment entered 19 May 1975 in Superior Court, Pitt County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 February 1976.\nThe plaintiff, Administrator of the estate of Edgar Luther Barrett III, commenced this action on 16 August 1972, in Superior Court of New Hanover County. The complaint alleges that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, Edgar Luther Barrett III. The injuries he received on October 9, 1970, allegedly resulted from a collision with the defendant, Johnny Lee Smith, while participating in a football game between J. H. Rose High School of Greenville, North Carolina, and New Hanover High School of Wilmington, North Carolina. The alleged acts and omissions complained of concerned negligent or wilful disregard for the rules, regulations, and requirements of the North Carolina High School Athletic Association and the North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, in that the J. H. Rose High School football team used a player, Johnny Lee Smith, who was ineligible for competition under the aforesaid rules, regulations, and requirements. These rules stated that players twenty years of age or older were not eligible for competition and that players were not eligible for competition beyond the eighth consecutive semester after entry into the ninth grade.\nThe present action was removed from New Hanover County to Pitt County Superior Court upon defendants\u2019 motion. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. A hearing was had upon defendants\u2019 motion on 3 March 1975. Judgment was rendered out of term on 19 May 1975. The plaintiff excepted to the judgment and his appeal entries were filed on 21 May 1975.\nMattox and Reid, P.A., by David E. Reid, Jr., and Gary B. Davis, for plaintiff appellant.\nHogue, Hill, Jones, Nash & Lynch, by William L. Hill II, and Speight, Watson and Brewer, by William C. Brewer, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 254
}
