{
  "id": 8603221,
  "name": "J. T. SMITHWICK v. COLONIAL PINE COMPANY, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smithwick v. Colonial Pine Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-09-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "431",
  "last_page": "432",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 431"
    }
  ],
  "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": "115 N. C., 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652720
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0673-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631312
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0714-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S. E., 473",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S. E., 363",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0673-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631312
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0714-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2412,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33427431483457143
    },
    "sha256": "fd01dd8c89b7a7229d4e665f18645f1271418b037efb1af5e2aef89a38f03344",
    "simhash": "1:b9120629c28302db",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. T. SMITHWICK v. COLONIAL PINE COMPANY, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe judgment will be affirmed on authority of what was said in Lee v. Produce Co., 197 N. C., 714, 150 S. E., 363.\nThe case of Burgin v. R. R., 115 N. C., 673, 20 S. E., 473, strongly relied upon by the defendant, is easily distinguishable, the character of the allegations in the two complaints being quite different.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. H. Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "S. L. Arrington for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. T. SMITHWICK v. COLONIAL PINE COMPANY, Inc.\n(Filed 17 September, 1930.)\n1. Pleadings D a \u2014 Where pleadings lihoi\u2019ally construed allege a cause of action a demurrer thereto will he overruled.\nUpon a demurrer the pleadings are liberally construed in the light most favorable to the pleader, and where there are conflicting allegations, and one of them is sufficient to allege a cause of action, a demurrer thereto will not be sustained. O. S., 535.\n2. Highways B h \u2014 In this case held: demurrer on ground that complaint disclosed contributory negligence barring recovery was properly overruled.\nWhere, in an action to recover damages for a collision it is alleged that the collision resulted from the plaintiff\u2019s son, while driving in a careful manner, running into the defendant\u2019s truck which was negligently parked on the hard-surface portion of the highway, and that the injury was a result of the \u201cwilful, wanton, careless and negligent conduct of the defendant,\u201d the allegations are sufficient to overrule defendant\u2019s demurrer thereto entered on the ground that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff\u2019s son was patent upon the face of the complaint. Lee v. Produce Oo., 197 N. C., 714, cited and applied. Burgin v. R. R., 115 N. C., 673, cited and distinguished.\nAppeal by defendant from Small, J., at February Term, 1930, of Beetle.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff\u2019s automobile, caused by a collision between said automobile, while being driven in a careful manner by plaintiff\u2019s son, and the defendant\u2019s truck which was negligently parked on the hard-surfaced portion of the highway, heavily loaded with lumber. It is alleged that the injury to plaintiff\u2019s automobile, in the amount of $1,000, was caused by \u201cthe wilful, wanton, careless and negligent conduct of the defendant.\u201d\nA demurrer was interposed on the alleged ground that the contributory negligence of plaintiff\u2019s son was patent on the face of the complaint. Overruled; exception; appeal.\nJ. H. Matthews for plaintiff.\nS. L. Arrington for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0431-01",
  "first_page_order": 499,
  "last_page_order": 500
}