{
  "id": 8620885,
  "name": "D. L. McKOY v. A. F. CRAVEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "McKoy v. Craven",
  "decision_date": "1930-06-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "780",
  "last_page": "781",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 780"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 N. C., 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271978
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/153/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277663
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 1015",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654497
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/1015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N. C., 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1972701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/32/0402-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5509940287656404e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6746352779640821
    },
    "sha256": "01ee8fec850ff079b97f48434f84226b613c30035862e7c797be72718606010c",
    "simhash": "1:d1e5e414ae5c97e4",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. L. McKOY v. A. F. CRAVEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nTbe plaintiff and tbe defendant were equally in fault. If one can recover so can the other. Thus there would be \u201cmutual faults and mutual recoveries, which would contradict tbe saying that \u2018law is tbe perfection of reason.\u2019\u201d Herring v. R. R., 32 N. C., 402. It is settled by tbe decisions of this Court that tbe plaintiff is not entitled to damages- upon tbe verdict. Baker v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1015; Sasser v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 242; Carter v. R. R., ibid., 244, 255; Holton v. Moore, ibid., 549. It will be noted that there is no issue as to tbe last clear chance. Gunter v. Wicker, 85 N. C., 310; Edge v. R. R., 153 N. C., 212. Tbe appellant cites Wood v. Jones, ante, 356; but in that case tbe second issue was whether tbe defendant, not tbe plaintiff, bad by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury. A new trial was given because tbe verdict was indefinite.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb V. Turlington for plaintiff.",
      "Raymer & Raymer for appellee, Albert L. Storr."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. L. McKOY v. A. F. CRAVEN.\n(Filed 6 June, 1930.)\nNegligence D d \u2014 Where issue of contributory negligence is answered in defendant\u2019s favor the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.\nWhere the issue of negligence and contributory negligence arise in an action for damages to tbe plaintiff\u2019s automobile, there being no issue as to the last clear chance, the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment where the jury answers both issues in the affirmative and awards damages.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Shaw, J., at January Term, 1930, of Ieedell. No error.\nThe verdict was as follows:\n1. Was the plaintiff\u2019s car damaged by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did tbe plaintiff, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis damage, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: Yes.\nWhat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant? Answer: $50.00.\nIt was thereupon adjudged that tbe plaintiff take nothing by bis action and that the defendant recover bis costs.\nZeb V. Turlington for plaintiff.\nRaymer & Raymer for appellee, Albert L. Storr."
  },
  "file_name": "0780-01",
  "first_page_order": 850,
  "last_page_order": 851
}