{
  "id": 8654580,
  "name": "ALLIE TISE v. TOWN OF THOMASVILLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tise v. Town of Thomasville",
  "decision_date": "1909-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "281",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 281"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 N. C., 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 796",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660489
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/135/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N. C., 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/129/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0581-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3972,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2809072675321742e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7851600614553204
    },
    "sha256": "738ee8062acf2a8d713c67552395d88f7693021e219f75a43fdf3de6380807fd",
    "simhash": "1:03755156972f9333",
    "word_count": 671
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALLIE TISE v. TOWN OF THOMASVILLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nAction for damages for personal injuries to plaintiff, from ber borse stepping into a bole in tbe street. Tbe defense put on evidence tbat tbe bole bad been filled up before tbe day tbe injury was alleged to bave occurred. Tbe plaintiff, in reply, was allowed to sbow.tbat tbe bole was filled after the accident, and tbe defendant excepted.\nTbe general rule is, tbat tbe plaintiff cannot show tbat after the accident tbe defect wbicb caused tbe injury was repaired. Lowe v. Elliott, 109 N. C., 581; Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N. C., 252.\nSubsequent repairs are not an admission of previous culpable negligence, nor should tbe parties be deterred from making repairs for fear it should be so held. But here, tbe defendant having put on evidence that tbe bole in tbe roadway bad been filled up before tbe day of the injury, it was competent to show that tbe repairs were made afterwards \u2014 not tbat the repairs were evidence .tending to prove negligence, but simply to prove their date to contradict the defendant\u2019s witnesses. Westfeldt v. Adams, 135 N. C., 601.\nThe evidence was also competent in corroboration of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence of the existence of the hole at that time and place. The defendant contends that, in this view, the court should have instructed the jury that this .evidence was admitted only in corroboration. But Rule 27 (140 N. C., 662) provides that this is not error, \u201cunless the appellant asks, at the time of admission, that it be restricted.\u201d Hill v. Bean, 150 N. C., 437. Indeed, it does not appear that the judge did not give a proper instruction. The presumption is that he did, as there is no exception that he did not. State v. Powell, 106 N. C., 638; State v. Brabham, 108 N. C., 796; Byrd v. Hudson, 11 N. C., 211.\nThe only other exception is, that the court permitted the jury to consider \u201cpermanent injury\u201d as an element in assessing the damage. The court -submitted to the jury the question whether or not there was permanent injury, and there was evidence which justified him in so charging. '\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      ", Watson, Buxton & Watson and McCrary & McCrary for plaintiff.",
      "Emery E. Baper for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLIE TISE v. TOWN OF THOMASVILLE.\n(Filed 11 November, 1909.)\n1. Cities and Towns \u2014 Negligence\u2014Subsequent Repairs \u2014 Evidence Contradictory.\nI n an action for damages alleged to have been caused by plaintiff's borse stepping into a bole in tbe street negligently left there by defendant town, it is competent for plaintiff to show that tbe bole bad been filled after the accident to contradict tbe defendant\u2019s evidence tending to show it bad been filled before tbe .accident : though incompetent to show negligence by tbe mere fact of subsequent repairs.\n2. Cities and Towns \u2014 Negligence\u2014Subsequent Repairs \u2014 Evidence Corroborative.\nWhen plaintiff seeks to recover damages of a town for its alleged negligently leaving a hole in the streets which caused the injury complained of, and the defendant has introduced evidence tending to show that it had theretofore filled the hole, it is competent for plaintiff to show that the hole was afterwards filled as corroborative of her evidence of the existence of the hole at the . time and place.\n3. Evidence \u2014 Restrictive\u2014Exceptions\u2014Appeal and Error.\nWhen evidence is competent for some purpose, its general admission is not reversible error unless the appellant asks at the time of the admission that it be restricted.\n4. Instructions \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Presumption.\nWhen nothing to the contrary appears of record on appeal, the presumption is that the lower court gave correct instructions to the .jury.\n5. Negligence \u2014 Permanent Damages.\nIn this case the court properly permitted the jury to assess permanent damages to plaintiff, under the evidence, for injury received by reason of her horse stepping into a hole left by defendant upon its street.\nAppeal by defendant from E. B. Jones, J., February Term, 1909, of DavidsoN.\nTbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tire Court.\n, Watson, Buxton & Watson and McCrary & McCrary for plaintiff.\nEmery E. Baper for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0281-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 327
}