{
  "id": 8552981,
  "name": "NOAH H. KEY and BURLENE KEY MOORE, Administrators of the Estate of ASTOR COLON KEY v. MERRITT-HOLLAND WELDING SUPPLIES, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Key v. Merritt-Holland Welding Supplies, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1969-08-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 6920SC370",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "657",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 654"
    }
  ],
  "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": 335,
    "char_count": 6144,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4548587003634884e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8046461396011891
    },
    "sha256": "11e431618290a75de4b5d35ab87cc3eaa41dd53e43ecddef1e8c33e674ddaf51",
    "simhash": "1:15ac25286748c65f",
    "word_count": 985
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and MoeRis, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NOAH H. KEY and BURLENE KEY MOORE, Administrators of the Estate of ASTOR COLON KEY v. MERRITT-HOLLAND WELDING SUPPLIES, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbocK, J.\nPlaintiffs assign as error that the trial judge allowed defense counsel to cross-examine plaintiffs\u2019 witness (the investigating State Trooper) concerning whether the marks on the highway were \u201cjust tire marks and not black skid marks.\u201d On direct examination the witness had testified at length concerning the marks on the highway which led to defendant\u2019s truck, and it was appropriate for the witness to be cross-examined concerning the lightness or darkness of the marks. Plaintiffs further assign as error that they were limited in their redirect examination of the investigating officer concerning the marks on the road. The officer had just responded to questions by counsel for plaintiffs that \u201cthey were black marks\u201d made by defendant\u2019s truck. It seems to us that the trial judge had already allowed plaintiffs\u2019 counsel wide latitude in examining this witness, and that the marks on the highway had been exhaustively described. \u201cThe trial court may properly sustain objection to a question asked on redirect examination which is merely repetitious and directed to matter fully testified to by the witness on his direct examination, however proper the matter may have been in the first instance.\u201d 7 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Witnesses, \u00a7 9, p. 706. Plaintiffs\u2019 assignment of error No. 1 is overruled.\nPlaintiffs next assign as error that the trial court failed to give the tendered instructions exactly as requested. The requested instructions were given in substance. The litigants are not entitled to determine the exact sequence of the charge to the jury, and are not entitled to have the trial judge use the words and expressions as formulated by the litigant. The trial judge functions under the mandate of G.S. 1-180, and a compliance with this statute gives to the jury instructions which are designed to be fair to both sides. Plaintiffs\u2019 assignment of error No. 2 is overruled.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 assignments of error numbers 3 through 15 are directed to the charge of the court to the jury. We have carefully reviewed the pleadings, the evidence, and the charge and we hold that the case was submitted to the jury under proper explanations of the applicable principles of law. Plaintiffs\u2019 assignments of error to the charge are feckless and we do not discuss them either collectively or seriatim. Assignments of error numbers 3 through 15 are overruled.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 assignments of error numbers 16 and 17, are formal, and, in view of what has heretofore been said, they are overruled.\nIn the trial we find no error prejudicial to plaintiffs. The jury has found the facts contrary to plaintiffs\u2019 contentions, but they have nevertheless been resolved according to law.\nAffirmed.\nCampbell and MoeRis, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbocK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dock G. Smith, Jr., and John Randolph Ingram, by John Randolph Ingram, for plaintiffs-appellants.",
      "Pittman, Staton & Betts, by J. C. Pittman, for defendant ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NOAH H. KEY and BURLENE KEY MOORE, Administrators of the Estate of ASTOR COLON KEY v. MERRITT-HOLLAND WELDING SUPPLIES, INC.\nNo. 6920SC370\n(Filed 13 August 1969)\n1. Witnesses \u00a7 8\u2014 cross-examination \u2014 skid marks\nIn this action for wrongful death arising out of a collision between two trucks, the trial court did not err in allowing defense counsel to cross-examine plaintiffs\u2019 witness, who had testified at length concerning marks on the highway which led to defendant\u2019s truck, as to whether the marks were \u201cjust tire marks and not black skid marks,\u201d it being appropriate for the witness to be cross-examined as to the lightness or darkness of the marks.\nS. Witnesses \u00a7 9\u2014 limiting redirect examination \u2014 repetitious testimony\nIn this action for wrongful death arising out of a motor vehicle collision, the trial court did not err in limiting plaintiffs\u2019 redirect examination of the investigating officer concerning marks on the road at the accident scene where the officer had exhaustively described the marks on direct examination. \u25a0\n3. Trial \u00a7 38\u2014 tendered instructions given in substance\nIn this wrongful death action, the trial court did not err in failing to give tendered instructions exactly as requested where the requested instructions were given in substance.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Exum, J., 20 January 1969 Session, Mooee Superior Court.\nThis is a civil action instituted by the administrators of the estate of the deceased for damages for the wrongful death of their intestate. Plaintiffs allege that defendant\u2019s agent was negligent in the operation of defendant\u2019s truck, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of their intestate. Defendant\u2019s agent is not a party. Defendant answered, denying negligence, and in the alternative alleging that plaintiffs\u2019 intestate was negligent and that his negligence was one of the proximate causes of his death.\nThe evidence tends to show the following. Plaintiffs\u2019 intestate was driving a truck loaded with coal, traveling east on Highway 27 between Robbins and Carthage in Moore County. At a point approximately five miles east of Robbins a dirt road (# 1493) intersects Highway 27 from the north. Plaintiffs\u2019 intestate was in the process of delivering a load of coal to a customer who lived on the dirt road (# 1493) and was in the act of turning to his left from Highway 27 into the dirt road (# 1493) when the collision in question occurred. Defendant\u2019s truck was being operated by its agent, also traveling east on Highway 27 between Robbins and Carthage. As defendant\u2019s truck overtook the truck being operated by plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, defendant\u2019s truck was undertaking to pass and plaintiffs' intestate was undertaking to make a left turn into the dirt road (# 1493). Defendant\u2019s truck struck the left side of the truck being operated by plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, and plaintiffs\u2019 intestate died as a result of the injuries received in the collision.\nThere was considerable controversy over the- speed of defendant\u2019s truck, over the length of skid marks, and over whether plaintiffs\u2019 intestate gave a signal of his intention to turn. Issues of negligence and contributory negligence were submitted to and both answered by the jury in the affirmative. Plaintiffs appealed.\nDock G. Smith, Jr., and John Randolph Ingram, by John Randolph Ingram, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nPittman, Staton & Betts, by J. C. Pittman, for defendant ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 676,
  "last_page_order": 679
}