{
  "id": 8627589,
  "name": "WILLIAM E. FISHER, By His Next Friend, W. C. WAKEFIELD, v. E. L. DEATON and MRS. HATTIE DEATON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fisher ex rel. Wakefield v. Deaton",
  "decision_date": "1929-01-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "461",
  "last_page": "462",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 461"
    }
  ],
  "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": "184 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269962
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S. E., 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0248-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3419,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20728370650180764
    },
    "sha256": "f6663fbf62768eee784222654b937cf6bac66e376dc136c2e8422ea186f209c5",
    "simhash": "1:8aa05948cd0383b9",
    "word_count": 590
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM E. FISHER, By His Next Friend, W. C. WAKEFIELD, v. E. L. DEATON and MRS. HATTIE DEATON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nCalvin Eoad intersects St. Mary\u2019s Street from tbe west and terminates at tbe intersection. Defendant\u2019s car was being driven' northwardly by bis wife. Tbe plaintiff, according to tbe evidence, was on tbe east side of St. Mary\u2019s Street opposite tbe intersection of Calvin Eoad and was running across tbe street toward tbe intersection. Had plaintiff been using tbe intersection of Calvin Eoad at tbe time of tbe injury, tbe failure of tbe car to slow down to 15 miles an hour might have been found to have been tbe proximate cause of tbe injury. However, as tbe plaintiff was not walking along tbe highway, but ran out from behind a car toward tbe intersection of Calvin Eoad, a different situation was presented, and for tbis reason tbe principle announced in Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N. C., 248, 114 S. E., 170, does not apply.\nTbe trial judge charged: \u201cTbe driving of any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in wilful or wanton disregard of tbe rights of others, or without due caution and circumspection, and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, is \u2018reckless driving.\u2019 \u201d\nTbe judge further charged: \u201cIt is the duty of the driver of any vehicle to drive it at a careful and prudent rate of speed, not greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the surface and width of the highway, the traffic and other existing conditions; and so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.\u201d\nWhile the judge did not specifically call the attention of the jury to the provision of the statute requiring a motorist to reduce the speed to 15 miles an hour when approaching an intersection, there was no specific request for such instruction, and in our opinion the charge upon the question of negligence and the statutes applicable, constituted a substantial compliance with C. S., 564, in view of the facts disclosed in the present record.\nUpon the face of the record we find no error of law warranting a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gatling, Morris & Parker for plaintiff.",
      "Charles U. Harris for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM E. FISHER, By His Next Friend, W. C. WAKEFIELD, v. E. L. DEATON and MRS. HATTIE DEATON.\n(Filed 2 January, 1929.)\nHighways \u2014 Regulation and Use for Travel \u2014 Law of the Road \u2014 Negligence \u2014Automobiles\u2014Instructions.\nWhere the plaintiff was not walking along the highway but ran out from behind another automobile near an intersection and was struck and injured by the defendant\u2019s car for which injury he seeks to recover damages in his action: Held, it is not reversible error for the trial judge to fail to charge the jury specifically upon the various particulars as to the speed, etc., required of the driver of an automobile upon the highway at a cross-road, if he charges correctly upon the general law arising from the evidence. C. S., '564. Bowen v. Sohni'b'ben, 184 N. C., 248, cited and distinguished.\nCivil action, before Cranmer, J., at April Term, 1928, of \"Waice.\nTbe plaintiff, a minor about four years of age, instituted tbis action against tbe defendant for personal injury resulting from being struck by defendant\u2019s automobile at or near tbe intersection of St. Mary\u2019s Street and tbe Calvin Eoad in the city of Ealeigb.\nTbe cause was submitted to a jury, and tbe .issue of negligence was answered against tbe plaintiff and in favor of tbe defendant.\nFrom judgment upon tbe verdict plaintiff appealed.\nGatling, Morris & Parker for plaintiff.\nCharles U. Harris for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0461-01",
  "first_page_order": 541,
  "last_page_order": 542
}