{ "id": 8614108, "name": "MRS. R. B. JORDAN v. C. G. HATCH", "name_abbreviation": "Jordan v. Hatch", "decision_date": "1930-03-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "539", "last_page": "540", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 N.C. 539" } ], "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": "109 S. E., 564", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656667 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S. E., 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615883 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. E., 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658285 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0216-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 218, "char_count": 3534, "ocr_confidence": 0.443, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20717327535311905 }, "sha256": "303f846c33f942820f117e4b350fc5688be3d7cf261cf5fff9811d01f11a4c1a", "simhash": "1:b765f29e28a49072", "word_count": 592 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MRS. R. B. JORDAN v. C. G. HATCH." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only assignments of error on this appeal are based upon plaintiff\u2019s exceptions with respect to the charge of the court to the jury. These assignments of error cannot be sustained.\nPlaintiff\u2019s prayers for instructions to which she was entitled were given substantially, although not literally, in the charge. This was sufficient, as-has been generally held by this Court. Lloyd v. Bowen, 170 N. C., 216, 86 S. E., 797, and cases cited in the opinion of Walker, J. It was not error to refuse to charge the jury, as requested by plaintiff, that upon all the evidence they should answer the first issue, Yes. The evidence with respect to this issue was conflicting, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury, both upon the question of defendant\u2019s negligence, and upon the question of sole, proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff. Earwood v. R. R., 192 N. C., 27, 133 S. E., 180. Neither the allegations in the pleadings, nor the contentions of the parties called for an instruction as to concurrent negligence. White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564.\nWe find no error on this appeal for which the judgment should be reversed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gavin, Teague, & Byerly, and Hoyle & Hoyle for plaintiff.", "No counsel for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MRS. R. B. JORDAN v. C. G. HATCH.\n(Filed 26 March, 1930.)\n1. Trial E e \u2014 Where requested instructions are substantially given it is sufficient.\nWhere special instructions requested are substantially given in the charge it is sufficient.\n2. Trial G c \u2014 Directed vei\u2019dict will not be given on conflicting evidence.\nA directed verdict will not be given on conflicting evidence.\n3. Trial E c \u2014 Instructions as to matter not raised by pleadings or contentions are not required.\nInstructions in a personal injury case as to concurrent negligence are not required when the question is not raised by the pleadings or the contentions of the parties.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crammer, J., at July Term, 1929, of Lee. No error.\nAction to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, when tbe automobile in which she was riding as a guest was struck by a truck owned by defendant and driven by bis employee.\nThe driver of the automobile turned sharply to the left, and drove across the highway for the purpose of entering an intersecting road. The truck, which was following the automobile, struck it before the automobile had cleared the highway. As a result of the collision, plaintiff was injured.\nPlaintiff alleges in her complaint and offered evidence tending to show that the collision was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck, and that his negligence was the sole, proximate cause of her injuries. These allegations are denied by the defendant, who offered evidence tending to contradict the contentions of the plaintiff.\nPlaintiff specifically alleges in her complaint and offered evidence tending to show that at the time of and immediately before the collision, the automobile in which she was riding was operated by its driver in a careful and lawful manner. This allegation is denied by the defendant, who offered evidence tending to show that the sole, proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries was the negligence of the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding.\nThe jury by its answer to the first issue found that plaintiff was not injured by the negligence of defendant as alleged in the complaint.\nFrom judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendant by this action, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.\nGavin, Teague, & Byerly, and Hoyle & Hoyle for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant." }, "file_name": "0539-01", "first_page_order": 609, "last_page_order": 610 }