{
  "id": 8554377,
  "name": "PATRICIA ANN SELF, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, CRAWFORD M. SELF v. JERRY WAYNE DIXON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Self ex rel. Self v. Dixon",
  "decision_date": "1979-02-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7819SC339",
  "first_page": "679",
  "last_page": "681",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 679"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559163
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554817
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 U.S. 528",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12027325
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/403/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551127
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570852,
        8570759,
        8570896,
        8570805,
        8570717
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0761-04",
        "/nc/285/0761-02",
        "/nc/285/0761-05",
        "/nc/285/0761-03",
        "/nc/285/0761-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 S.E. 2d 380",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11309726
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "774"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562463
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "547"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0535-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 5402,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793827362135785
    },
    "sha256": "a063cd340606cbef3298d9088a9fc127a32b9dfdcc0e6418cbfbd497f4ae3fab",
    "simhash": "1:eb4b9efecd769546",
    "word_count": 912
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.834910+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and Martin (Harry C.) concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PATRICIA ANN SELF, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, CRAWFORD M. SELF v. JERRY WAYNE DIXON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nDefendant, in pleading contributory negligence, alleged that plaintiff violated various rules of the roads and statutes, including G.S. 20-174.1 which provides as follows:\n\u201cStanding, sitting or lying upon highways or streets prohibited. \u2014 (a) No person shall willfully stand, sit, or lie upon the highway or street in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic.\n(b) Any person convicted of violating this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the court.\u201d\nIn instructing the jury on the contributory negligence issue the trial court recited the statute.and added: \u201cNow, a violation of this law is negligence within itself.\u201d\nThe plaintiff assigns as error this instruction to the jury.\nThe language of G.S. 20-174.1 was construed in State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E. 2d 765 (1970), in which Justice Huskins, for the Court, wrote:\n\u201cWhen G.S. 20-174.1 is subjected to these rules of construction, it is quite clear that the legislature intended to make it unlawful for any person to impede the regular flow of traffic upon the streets and highways of the State by willfully placing his body thereon in either a standing, lying or sitting position. A person may stand and walk, stand and strut, stand and run, or stand still. All these acts are condemned by the statute when done willfuly in such manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic upon a public street or highway. . . .\u201d 276 N.C. at 547, 173 S.E. 2d at 774.\nIn Spencer and other cases involving violations of G.S. 20-174.1, the evidence tended to show that the defendants were involved in demonstrations and purposely impeded or blocked traffic for a substantial amount of time. See, State v. Frinks, 22 N.C. App. 584, 207 S.E. 2d 380, appeal dismissed 285 N.C. 761, 209 S.E. 2d 285 (1974); In re Shelton, 5 N.C. App. 487, 168 S.E. 2d 695 (1969); aff\u2019d 403 U.S. 528, 29 L.Ed. 2d 647, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971); In re Burrus, 4 N.C. App. 523, 167 S.E. 2d 454, modified 275 N.C. 517, 169 S.E. 2d 879 (1969), aff\u2019d 403 U.S. 528, 29 L.Ed. 2d 647, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971).\nIn the case sub judice there is not sufficient evidence tending to show that plaintiff willfully placed her body on Deaton Street to impede or block traffic in violation of G.S. 20-174.1. Plaintiff testified that she stood \u201chalf on and half off\u201d the pavement for the purpose of picking up the rag dropped by her niece and that she saw defendant\u2019s approaching automobile but was unable to get off the pavement before being struck. Defendant testified that upon turning south on Deaton Street he was blinded by the sun and did not see plaintiff until she was ten feet from him in a squatting position.\nSince a new trial must be ordered for error in submitting to the jury plaintiff\u2019s violation of G.S. 20-174.1 in instructing on the contributory negligence issue, the other assignments of error are not discussed since they may not recur upon retrial.\nReversed and remanded for a new trial.\nJudges VAUGHN and Martin (Harry C.) concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Koontz, Horton & Hawkins by K. Michael Koontz for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hedrick, Parham, Helms, Kellam & Feerick, by Hatcher Kin-cheloe for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PATRICIA ANN SELF, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, CRAWFORD M. SELF v. JERRY WAYNE DIXON\nNo. 7819SC339\n(Filed 6 February 1979)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 90.4\u2014 contributory negligence of pedestrian on street \u2014 no intent to impede traffic \u2014 instructions erroneous\nIn an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff pedestrian when she was struck by defendant\u2019s vehicle, the trial court erred in submitting to the jury plaintiffs violation of G.S. 20-174.1 in instructing on the issue of contributory negligence, since there was not sufficient evidence tending to show that plaintiff wilfully placed herself on the street to impede or block traffic.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Collier, Judge. Judgment entered 30 November 1977 in Superior Court, CABARRUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 January 1979.\nPlaintiff, age 14, seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained on 30 July 1975 when she was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant. The defendant\u2019s answer denied negligence and alleged that the minor plaintiff was contributorily negligent.\nAt trial, the plaintiff presented evidence which tended to show that it was daylight and the weather was fair; she was pushing her niece in a stroller in a southerly direction on the west shoulder of Deaton Street in Kannapolis. She could not push the stroller on the east shoulder because it was narrow and rough. She stooped down to pick up a rag her niece had dropped in the road; she was facing west, \u201chalf on and half off the pavement.\u201d She saw defendant\u2019s vehicle enter the intersection, about 60 feet to the north, and turn south on Deaton Street. She didn\u2019t have time to stand up and get off the pavement before the car hit her.\nThe evidence for defendant tended to show that defendant was blinded by the sun as he turned south on Deaton Street and could not see the minor plaintiff until he was approximately 10 feet away. He was traveling approximately 5 miles per hour down Deaton Street.\nThe jury found that defendant was negligent and that the minor plaintiff was contributorily negligent and plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant.\nKoontz, Horton & Hawkins by K. Michael Koontz for plaintiff appellant.\nHedrick, Parham, Helms, Kellam & Feerick, by Hatcher Kin-cheloe for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0679-01",
  "first_page_order": 707,
  "last_page_order": 709
}