{
  "id": 8549698,
  "name": "SADIE C. TAYLOR v. FRANK THOMAS WRIGHT and AMBROSE TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1970-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7019SC361",
  "first_page": "267",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 267"
    }
  ],
  "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": "125 S.E. 2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0161-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2699,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530566453874338
    },
    "sha256": "10bd32c4a40d695b23f1785e8d8a56d8ca2754253e69d62e383056ef7f38dbff",
    "simhash": "1:b1cdbcd2c28549f8",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Britt and Hedrick, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SADIE C. TAYLOR v. FRANK THOMAS WRIGHT and AMBROSE TAYLOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brock, J.\nDuring the course of the presentation of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, it was stipulated by plaintiff \u201cthat all of the plaintiff\u2019s medical and hospital expenses had been paid by the defendant Taylor\u2019s insurance carrier.\u201d Based upon this stipulation, the trial judge would not allow plaintiff to offer evidence of the amount of the medical and hospital expenses; and he instructed the jury that medical and hospital expenses were not involved in the case. Plaintiff assigns this as error.\nIn this jurisdiction plaintiff is not entitled to a double recovery, Tart v. Register, 257 N.C. 161, 125 S.E. 2d 754; and plaintiff would therefore have had to submit to a reduction in the verdict by the amount paid by defendant\u2019s insurance carrier had the trial judge allowed the evidence to be considered by the jury.\nAlthough we do not consider that it would have necessarily constituted reversible error had the trial judge allowed plaintiff to offer evidence of her medical and hospital expenses, and then to have reduced the verdict by the amount' already paid by defendant\u2019s carrier, we hold that it was not reversible error in this case for the trial judge to exclude the evidence from consideration by the jury.\nPlaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error have been considered and are overruled.\nNo Error.\nBritt and Hedrick, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brock, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Randolph Ingram for plaintiff.",
      "Smith, Moore, Smith, Sehell & Hunter, by Richmond G. Bernhardt, Jr., for defendant Wright.",
      "Perry C. Henson amd Daniel W. Donahue for defendant Taylor."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SADIE C. TAYLOR v. FRANK THOMAS WRIGHT and AMBROSE TAYLOR\nNo. 7019SC361\n(Filed 5 August 1970)\nDamages \u00a7\u00a7 10, 13\u2014 evidence of hospital and medical expenses \u2014 exclusion \u2014 payment by insurance\nWhere, in a personal injury action, it was stipulated that all of plaintiff\u2019s medical and hospital expenses had been paid by the defendant\u2019s insurance carrier, it was not reversible error for the trial court to exclude from jury consideration the plaintiff\u2019s evidence of her hospital and medical expenses.\nOn certiorari to review trial before Lupton, J., 2 June 1969 Session, Randolph Superior Court.\nBecause of the absence of the court reporter for the 19th District and the consequent inability of counsel to timely obtain a verbatim transcript of the record of trial, this Court allowed certiorari to perfect a late appeal.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered in an automobile accident on 20 March 1967 by reason of the joint and concurring negligence of defendants.\nThe jury answered that defendant Wright was not negligent, that defendant Taylor was negligent, and awarded damages in the sum of $500.00. Plaintiff appealed.\nJohn Randolph Ingram for plaintiff.\nSmith, Moore, Smith, Sehell & Hunter, by Richmond G. Bernhardt, Jr., for defendant Wright.\nPerry C. Henson amd Daniel W. Donahue for defendant Taylor."
  },
  "file_name": "0267-01",
  "first_page_order": 291,
  "last_page_order": 292
}
