{ "id": 8547309, "name": "DONALD GUY KINNEY v. CHARLES REID GOLEY, SR.; - and - KENNETH E. CROWSON, by his Next Friend, BOBBIE M. GREEN v. CHARLES R. GOLEY and DONALD GUY KINNEY; - and - JOHN L. NOLL, JR. v. CHARLES R. GOLEY and DONALD GUY KINNEY", "name_abbreviation": "Kinney v. Goley", "decision_date": "1969-09-17", "docket_number": "No. 68SC153", "first_page": "182", "last_page": "185", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "6 N.C. App. 182" } ], "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": "167 S.E. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 N.C. App. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 1070", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1075" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651694 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 937", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "938" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659772 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.C. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8689154 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E. 242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272955 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E. 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655080 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571093 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 471", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565056 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S.E. 2d 512", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627559 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 N.C. App. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553376 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/4/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 386, "char_count": 7305, "ocr_confidence": 0.58, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.66217029417753e-08, "percentile": 0.5287066929384686 }, "sha256": "02139f61bc64e02ad6debceb04beefaf43967b7589685e4d8587fd2887841b2b", "simhash": "1:a48f2478fd1af566", "word_count": 1286 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mallard, C.J., and BeocK, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "DONALD GUY KINNEY v. CHARLES REID GOLEY, SR. \u2014 and \u2014 KENNETH E. CROWSON, by his Next Friend, BOBBIE M. GREEN v. CHARLES R. GOLEY and DONALD GUY KINNEY \u2014 and \u2014 JOHN L. NOLL, JR. v. CHARLES R. GOLEY and DONALD GUY KINNEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, J.\nThese three civil actions, which were consolidated for trial, arose out of the same two-car automobile collision. In the first case Kinney, driver of the southbound automobile, sued Goley, driver of the northbound automobile, who was making a left turn. The other two cases were brought by Crowson and Noll, passengers in Kinney\u2019s automobile, against both drivers. In all three cases the jury answered the issues of negligence in favor of Kinney and against Goley. On appeal this Court found error in the judge\u2019s charge to the jury as to the effect of G.S. 20-154, if they should find as a fact that Goley had failed to give a proper turn signal. Since the erroneous portion of the charge was relevant to all three cases, we held appellant Goley, a defendant in all cases, entitled to new trials in all three cases.\nIn apt time after the filing of our decision, Kinney, driver of the other vehicle, filed a petition in this Court to rehear, asking that our opinion be modified to provide that the new trial in each of the passenger cases be limited to the issue of Goley\u2019s liability and that the jury\u2019s verdict finding Kinney free from negligence in those cases be allowed to stand. We granted the petition in order to clarify our opinion and to resolve the issue raised.\nPetitioner Kinney contends that the grant of new trials as to defendant Goley should not disturb the verdicts in petitioner\u2019s favor in the two passenger cases, since the portion of the judge\u2019s charge found to be erroneous related only to negligence of defendant Goley and, so petitioner argues, bore no relationship to the jury\u2019s finding of no negligence on the part of Kinney.\nIn our opinion reported in Kinney v. Goley, 4 N.C. App. 325, 333, 167 S.E. 2d 97, 103, we said:\n\u201cWe deem it unnecessary to consider the remaining assignments of error made by appellants Crowson and Noll, since in any event there must be new trials and the questions raised will probably not recur.\u201d\nWe have now further examined those assignments of error and are of opinion that error prejudicial to Crowson and Noll was probably committed in the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury in the cases brought by the two passengers, in failing to charge in those cases on the provisions of G.S. 20-141 (c) and their applicability to the duty of defendant Kinney under the evidence presented at the trial. We do not, however, find it necessary to decide this question, since we are of the opinion that in any event the request of defendant Kinney that the new trials awarded in the two passenger cases be against defendant Goley only should be denied.\nThat the Court has power to grant a partial new trial in appropriate cases has long been settled by the decisions of our Supreme Court. Johnson v. Lewis, 251 N.C. 797, 112 S.E. 2d 512, and cases cited therein. However, it is also settled beyond controversy that it is entirely discretionary with the Court whether it will grant a partial new trial in a particular case. Paris v. Aggregates, Inc., 271 N.C. 471, 157 S.E. 2d 131; Jenkins v. Hines Co., 264 N.C. 83, 141 S.E. 2d 1; Lumber Co. v. Branch, 158 N.C. 251, 73 S.E. 164; Benton v. Collins, 125 N.C. 83, 34 S.E. 242; Burton v. Railroad, 84 N.C. 192. Our Supreme Court has stated that \u201c. . . before sucii partial new trial is ordered it should clearly appear that no possible injustice can be done to either party,\u201d Jarrett v. Trunk Co., 144 N.C. 299, 302, 56 S.E. 937, 938; and \u201c. . . where the questions involved are' so interwoven that they cannot be separated and a new trial allowed as to one or more issues, without prejudicing the rights of one or more of the parties or preventing a full and just trial of the whole matter, the power to grant a partial new trial should not be exercised.\u201d Gregg v. Wilmington, 155 N.C. 18, 30, 70 S.E. 1070, 1075.\nIn the present case the evidence and the court\u2019s charge thereon relative to the conduct of the respective drivers of the two vehicles involved in the collision was so interwoven and so interrelated that it would be impossible to give rational consideration to the conduct of one driver except as it was affected by and related to the simultaneous conduct of the other driver. Therefore a new trial of the passenger cases as to one driver should, in fairness to all parties, call for a fresh jury consideration of the interrelated conduct of both drivers.\nAfter full consideration this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, denies petitioner Kinney\u2019s request for a partial new trial in the two passenger cases and awards a new trial in each case on all issues raised by the pleadings therein.\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and BeocK, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, by Bynum M. Hunter and Larry B. Sitton, for petitioner on rehearing, defendant Donald Guy Kinney.", "Arch K. Schoch, Jr., for respondent Kenneth E. Crowson (plaintiff in Case No. 2).", "Jerry M. Shuping, and Smith \u2022& Casper, by Archie L. Smith, for respondent John L. Noll, Jr. (plaintiff in Case No. 8).", "Ottway Burton, and Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn