{
  "id": 8621705,
  "name": "MRS. ELIZABETH BERRY v. INTER-CAROLINA MOTOR BUS COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berry v. Inter-Carolina Motor Bus Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "817",
  "last_page": "818",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 817"
    }
  ],
  "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": 257,
    "char_count": 3145,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "sha256": "b8a7c5a5988868cd765656681c36e8db7cdb7c68bd30324a8c0ff405bfd830c3",
    "simhash": "1:084a7e80820f1575",
    "word_count": 576
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. ELIZABETH BERRY v. INTER-CAROLINA MOTOR BUS COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. These motions were overruled, and in this we think there was no error.\nWe have read the record and the well prepared briefs of the able counsel with care. The court below gave defendant\u2019s prayers for instructions. We think, from the facts in this case, the issues were the proper ones to have been submitted to the jury.\nWe see no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence during the \u25a0trial, or in the charge of the court below. There is no new or novel proposition of law presented by. the record. It was mainly a question of fact for the jury to determine. They have answered the issues in favor of plaintiff. In a case of this kind, we have jurisdiction only to review upon appeal any decisions of the court below \u201cupon any matter of law or legal inference.\u201d We find in law\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Laurence J ones and J. L. D&Lamey for plaintiff.",
      "John W. Hester for defendcmt."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. ELIZABETH BERRY v. INTER-CAROLINA MOTOR BUS COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 January, 1930.)\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, Special Judge, and a jury, at April Term, 1929, of MecicueNBurg. No error.\nThis was an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendant for injuries received when a passenger in defendant\u2019s bus, which left tbe highway. Tbe defendant denied negligence and set up tbe defense of contributory negligence. Tbe defendant further introduced evidence to tbe effect that plaintiff\u2019s injury was not caused by defendant; that her injury was from other causes.\nTbe plaintiff testified, in part: \u201cI am tbe plaintiff in this action. On 24 April, 1928, I came to Charlotte, North Carolina, from Greer, South Carolina, where I had been to see my sick mother. I paid my fare, and on the other side of King\u2019s Mountain the bus in which I was riding started around a closed car, which did not sufficiently yield the road, and when the bus went out on the dirt off the pavement the bank gave way. The bus plowed along the bank and went down the fill until it reached level ground, when it sank down in tho soft dirt, when it gave a sudden jerk back and forth and tilted, but did not turn over. The sudden jerk strained my foot. I had my feet against the seat in front of us and held with, my hand. My leg struck the seat in front of us in two places between the knee and ankle. I got out of the bus. At this time I did know that I was hurt, but I did not think it would amount to anything much, but when I got on my feet it began to ache and hurt, and when I reached Charlotte my left ankle was swollen up,\u201d etc.\nThere was further evidence on the part of plaintiff to the effect that she was permanently injured, and plaintiff\u2019s contention was also to the effect that it was caused by defendant\u2019s negligence and not other causes.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Was plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $5,000.\u201d\nL. Laurence J ones and J. L. D&Lamey for plaintiff.\nJohn W. Hester for defendcmt."
  },
  "file_name": "0817-02",
  "first_page_order": 887,
  "last_page_order": 888
}