{ "id": 8357946, "name": "JANICE KING, Plaintiff v. GREGORY ODELL HUMPHREY, Defendant, and Third-Party Plaintiff v. EMBREY BOYKIN and NATHAN BANKS, Third-Party Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "King v. Humphrey", "decision_date": "1987-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 874SC446", "first_page": "143", "last_page": "146", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 N.C. App. 143" } ], "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": "86 S.E. 2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "interpreting and applying the predecessor statute, G.S. \u00a7 1-240" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608947 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "interpreting and applying the predecessor statute, G.S. \u00a7 1-240" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570648 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0740-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 349, "char_count": 5504, "ocr_confidence": 0.831, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20293808635175256 }, "sha256": "ef343751fd471b3b8a80e32cfd2871f008697280fa21924da51776934d47b876", "simhash": "1:4fa9402305c9bdfd", "word_count": 854 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:20:42.285314+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and Cozort concur." ], "parties": [ "JANICE KING, Plaintiff v. GREGORY ODELL HUMPHREY, Defendant, and Third-Party Plaintiff v. EMBREY BOYKIN and NATHAN BANKS, Third-Party Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nThird-party defendants\u2019 (hereinafter defendants) Motion for a Directed Verdict was based on two stated reasons: first, because third-party plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) \u201cfailed to present any evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the third-party defendants\u201d and, second, because plaintiff \u201cfailed to present any evidence of the extinguishment of the claim of the [original] plaintiff, Janice King, against the third-party defendants as required by Chapter IB of the General Statutes of North Carolina.\u201d Plaintiff assigns as error the trial court\u2019s ruling on both bases of defendants\u2019 motion.\nThis case arose out of a collision that occurred at about 12:10 a.m. on 16 October 1983 near Autryville in Sampson County as the parties were returning home from a concert in separate vans. Defendant Boykin was driving his vehicle in an eastward direction on N. C. Highway 24 when he encountered thick smoke of unknown origin which had engulfed the highway. The evidence presented at trial tends to show that defendant drove a short distance into the cloud of smoke and then brought his van to a stop, on the highway, in order to converse with the driver of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. While Boykin\u2019s vehicle was stopped, a van owned and operated by plaintiff Humphrey crashed into the rear of the Boykin van, injuring the original plaintiff, Janice King.\nPlaintiff contends that the trial court\u2019s directed verdict was improper because (1) there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of negligence, and (2) because the failure to prove extinguishment of liability under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1B-1(d) is an improper ground upon which to grant a Rule 50 Motion for Directed Verdict. We disagree.\nOur review of the trial transcript persuades us that the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion on the grounds that plaintiff had not complied with the contribution statute. G.S. \u00a7 1B-1(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: \u201cA tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution from another tort-feasor whose liability for the injury on wrongful death has not been extinguished . . . .\u201d The record shows that plaintiff entered into a settlement with King, the original plaintiff, but the trial transcript makes it clear that plaintiff did not introduce into evidence the release he claims he obtained from King, nor did he otherwise show that defendants\u2019 liability to King had been extinguished. This was a threshold requirement for plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff asks us to hold that in order for defendant to prevail on this issue it was necessary for defendant to plead and prove the absence of a general release \u2014in other words, treat the statutory requirement of extinguishment as an affirmative defense. We cannot agree. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that since contribution among joint tort-feasors is a purely statutory remedy, its enforcement must be in accord with the statute\u2019s provisions. See, e.g., Shaw v. Baxley, 270 N.C. 740, 155 S.E. 2d 256 (1967) and Potter v. Frosty Mom Meats, Inc., 242 N.C. 67, 86 S.E. 2d 780 (1955) (interpreting and applying the predecessor statute, G.S. \u00a7 1-240). We therefore hold that in this case it was plaintiffs burden to affirmatively show that he had met the requirements of G.S. \u00a7 1B-1(d). Plaintiff having failed to do this, the trial court correctly granted defendants\u2019 Motion for a Directed Verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges JOHNSON and Cozort concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Anderson, Broadfoot, Johnson & Pittman, by Steven C. Lawrence, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.", "Russ, Worth & Cheatwood, by Walker Y. Worth, Jr., for third-party defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JANICE KING, Plaintiff v. GREGORY ODELL HUMPHREY, Defendant, and Third-Party Plaintiff v. EMBREY BOYKIN and NATHAN BANKS, Third-Party Defendants\nNo. 874SC446\n(Filed 15 December 1987)\nTorts 8 4.1\u2014 contribution among tort-feasors \u2014 settlement by one \u2014 not entitled to contribution\nThe trial court properly granted a directed verdict against an original defendant and third-party plaintiff who entered into a settlement with the original plaintiff but failed to affirmatively show that he had met the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1B-I(d). Plaintiff did not introduce into evidence the release he claimed he obtained from the original plaintiff, nor did he otherwise show that defendants\u2019 liability to the original plaintiff had been extinguished.\nAPPEAL by defendant and third-party plaintiff from Watts, Thomas S., Judge. Judgment entered 11 June 1986 in SAMPSON County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 November 1987.\nOn 25 February 1985 original plaintiff Janice King filed suit against defendant and eventual third-party plaintiff, Gregory Odell Humphrey, seeking recovery for injuries resulting from his alleged negligence. On 20 June 1985 defendant Humphrey filed a third-party complaint against the driver and owner of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, seeking contribution. Plaintiff and defendant subsequently settled, whereupon, according to defendant\u2019s brief, plaintiff King issued a general release dismissing with prejudice her claim against the defendant. The third-party claim for contribution came on for trial on 9 June 1986. At the conclusion of defendant\u2019s and third-party plaintiffs evidence, the trial court granted third-party defendants\u2019 Motion for a Directed Verdict under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Third-party plaintiff appealed.\nAnderson, Broadfoot, Johnson & Pittman, by Steven C. Lawrence, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.\nRuss, Worth & Cheatwood, by Walker Y. Worth, Jr., for third-party defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0143-01", "first_page_order": 171, "last_page_order": 174 }