{
  "id": 8627888,
  "name": "JULIAN A. GLAZENER v. THE SAFETY TRANSIT LINES, Inc., and T. C. HENDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glazener v. Safety Transit Lines, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1929-01-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "504",
  "last_page": "506",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 504"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 S. E., 761",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0102-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 3300,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0019829003732431e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5391497728245932
    },
    "sha256": "7540abf4c2039ff3bfe0acf781e2536f28849eb64f8ad285da009b59b9461ff7",
    "simhash": "1:1f1135597aff62cb",
    "word_count": 540
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JULIAN A. GLAZENER v. THE SAFETY TRANSIT LINES, Inc., and T. C. HENDERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuriaM.\nThere is no error in tbe judgment overruling appellant\u2019s demurrer to tbe complaint, upon tbe ground, first, that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, second, that there is a misjoinder therein both of parties and causes of action.\nTbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, taken to be true for tbe purposes of this appeal, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against both defendants. Plaintiff, while riding as a guest in an automobile driven by defendant, T. C. Henderson, was injured as tbe result of a collision between said automobile and a. bus owned and operated by defendant, Tbe Safety Transit Lines, Inc., on a State Highway. Upon tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint, tbe proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries was tbe joint and concurrent negligence of tbe defendants. Upon these facts they are liable as joint tort-feasors. Lineberger v. City of Gastonia, ante, 445; Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421.\nIn Ballinger v. Thomas et al., 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761, it is said: \u201cThat one who is riding in an automobile, tbe driver of which is not bis agent or servant, nor under bis control, and who is injured by tbe joint or combined negligence of a third person and tbe driver, may recover of either or both, upon proper allegations, for tbe injuries thus inflicted through such concurring negligence, is fully established by our own decisions, and tbe great weight of authority elsewhere.\u201d See cases cited.\n. There are no inconsistent allegations with respect to tbe negligence of tbe defendants in this case, as there were in Ballinger v. Thomas. Nor is tbe allegation that tbe joint and concurrent negligence of defendants was tbe proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries, merely a conclusion of law by tbe pleader. Tbe facts with respect to tbe negligence of both defendants are alleged in the complaint, specifically and in detail. Upon these facts plaintiff is entitled to recover of either or both of the defendants.\nThe action is remanded to the Superior Court of Transylvania County, to the end that defendants may file answers to the complaint, if they are so advised. The judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuriaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "L>. L. English for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JULIAN A. GLAZENER v. THE SAFETY TRANSIT LINES, Inc., and T. C. HENDERSON.\n(Filed 9 January, 1929.)\nParties \u2014 Defendant \u2014 Joinder \u2014 Joint Tort-Feasors \u2014 Automobiles \u2014 Demurrer.\nWhere the plaintiff alleges that he was riding in an automobile independently driven by another, and that he received injuries proximately caused by the concurrent negligence of such driver, and the driver of another automobile, alleging in detail sufficient matters to constitute negligence on the part of both drivers, the negligence alleged is of a joint tort, permitting recovery against each or both joint tort-feasors, and a demurrer to the complaint for misjoinder of parties and causes of action is bad.\nAppeal by defendant, Tbe Safety Transit Lines, Inc., from Bchenck, J., at August Term, 1928, of TraNsylvaNia.\nAffirmed.\nAction to recover damages for personal injuries caused by tbe joint and concurrent negligence of defendants.\nFrom judgment overruling its demurrer to tbe complaint, defendant, Tbe Safety Transit Lines, Inc., appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nL>. L. English for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0504-01",
  "first_page_order": 584,
  "last_page_order": 586
}