{
  "id": 8658059,
  "name": "FRANK ANTHONY v. J. EDGAR POAG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Anthony v. Poag",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. 250"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 3031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31955685447298277
    },
    "sha256": "90fc5aee8b0c519aedd20eb09bcb835cc1938dd762262a06fc1fb47270be19f1",
    "simhash": "1:bde0548616020cd7",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:09.233721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FRANK ANTHONY v. J. EDGAR POAG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nThe issue as to defendant\u2019s liability for plaintiff\u2019s injury was largely one of fact, and, the jury having accepted plaintiff\u2019s version of the occurrence, an actionable wrong is established, and we find no sufficient reason for disturbing the result.\nThere were facts in evidence tending to show that, shortly after the occurrence, defendant had shown concern for plaintiff\u2019s condition; had left $5 at a drug store for him and taken steps to have him presently removed to his (plaintiff\u2019s) home, and it was chiefly urged for error that the court failed to charge, as requested by defendant, that this conduct should not be considered on the issue of negligence.\nWhile the prayer may, as a general rule and on this record, embody a correct general proposition, we do not think the action of the court concerning it should be held for reversible error, for the reason that we are utterly unable to see that the evidence was used to defendant\u2019s prejudice or that it in any way affected the result.\nAs a matter of fact, the kindness of the defendant in procuring a physician for plaintiff was brought out on cross-examination of plaintiff by defendant\u2019s counsel, and the considerate conduct of his client was no doubt used to full advantage in the discussion of the issue. It was for this reason, probably, the court ignored the prayer for instructions, and, in doing so, we are unable to see that prejudicial error was committed. After giving the matter very careful consideration, we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David P. Dellinger for plaintiff.",
      "Mangum & Woltz for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRANK ANTHONY v. J. EDGAR POAG.\n(Filed 5 May, 1915.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Instructions\u2014Negligence\u2014-Harmless Error.\nIn an action to recover for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff, \u25a0while driving on the streets of a town, hy the defendant while running an automobile, the plaintiff on cross-examination testified that defendant gave him $5 .in money, carried him to his home and appeared to be solicitous of him. The court refused to charge, at -defendant\u2019s request, this evidence should not be considered on the issue of negligence, and it is held that no prejudice to defendant has been shown, and the refusal of the request was not reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at December Term, 1914, of GrASTON.\nCivil action to recover for negligent injury.\nThere were facts in evidence tending to show that, in May, 1911, plaintiff, driving a one-horse wagon in the town of Cherryville, was injured by reason of negligence on the part of defendant, operating an automobile on the streets of the town.\nThere was evidence on part of defendant that he was not negligent, and further that plaintiff\u2019s injury was properly attributable to his own negligence in the way he endeavored to alight from his wagon at the time of the occurrence.\nOn the three ordinary issues, in actions of this character, there was verdict for plaintiff. Judgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nDavid P. Dellinger for plaintiff.\nMangum & Woltz for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 302,
  "last_page_order": 303
}