{
  "id": 8608827,
  "name": "SALLIE W. PRIDGEN v. HOLEMAN PRODUCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pridgen v. Holeman Produce Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-10-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 560"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 S. E., 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 5343,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7016101321252332e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7009088174638753
    },
    "sha256": "c9c68b71d234ec63dd03a99026e69214ab3f8d360a811065a8d8c373034f379d",
    "simhash": "1:9e26b390901423d9",
    "word_count": 906
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SALLIE W. PRIDGEN v. HOLEMAN PRODUCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CoNNOs, J.\nWe find no error in the trial of this action. It was competent for plaintiff\u2019s husband to testify, from his observation, both as to fact and as to the extent of her suffering. The jury was properly and correctly instructed as to the principles of law discussed and applied in Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761, relative to the negligence of a third party which insulates the negligence of the defendant, and is, therefore, the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries. There was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries was the negligence of the driver of the truck, for which defendant was liable on the principle of respondeat superior.\nThere was evidence tending to show that the driver of the automobile, in which plaintiff was riding, was confronted by a sudden peril caused by the negligence of the driver of defendant\u2019s truck. It is doubtful whether there was evidence tending to show that he acted otherwise than as a prudent man under the circumstances, which constituted an emergency. In Hinton v. R. R., 172 N. C., 587, 90 S. E., 756, it is said: \u201cIt is well understood that a person in the presence of an emergency is not usually held to the same deliberation or circumspect care as in ordinary conditions.\u201d If the conduct of the driver of the automobile was not such negligence as would bar his recovery, it is manifest that such conduct was not negligence insulating the negligence of the defendant, and therefore relieving defendant of liability to the plaintiff in this action, because its negligence was not the proximate cause of her injuries. The judgment is affirmed. We find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CoNNOs, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Banzei for plaintiff",
      "Smith & J oyner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SALLIE W. PRIDGEN v. HOLEMAN PRODUCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 15 October, 1930.)\n1. Highways B f \u2014 Evidence held sufficient to take case to jury on question of proximate cause and intervening negligence.\nEvidence tending to show that the plaintiff was being driven by her husband in his automobile and that the driver of the defendant\u2019s truck, in attempting to pass the car in which she was riding, suddenly and without warning drove his truck back to the right of the road in front of the car driven by the plaintiff\u2019s 'husband before the truck had completely passed the car, and that her husband, to avoid a collision with the truck drove his car off the road and hit a filling station, causing the injury in suit, is held, sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the question of whether the negligence of defendant\u2019s driver was the proximate cause of the injury or whether the husband of the plaintiff was guilty of intervening negligence relieving the defendant of liability.\n2. Evidence K a \u2014 Husband may testify from his own observation as to the fact and extent of his wife\u2019s suffering from negligent injury.\nIn the wife\u2019s action to recover damages for an alleged negligent personal injury it is competent for her husband to testify from his own observation both as to the fact and the extent of her suffering.\n3. Negligence B c \u2014 Acts of third person placed in imminent peril by defendant\u2019s negligence held not to bo intervening negligence barring recovery.\nWhere a driver negligently turns hack to the right before having fully passed a car on the highway, subjecting the driver of the car in which the plaintiff is riding to imminent peril, the plaintiff\u2019s driver will not be held to the same deliberation or circumspection as he would in ordinary circumstances, and in this case his driving off the road and hitting a filling station is held not to constitute intervening negligence as a matter of law, which would insulate the negligence of the defendant, and relieve him from liability.\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, J., at May Term, 1930, of WarreN.\nNo error.\nAction to recover damages for personal injuries caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant.\nPlaintiff was riding in an automobile driven by ber busband on tbe bigbway from Ealeigb to Wake Forest. Defendant\u2019s truck, loaded witb produce and driven by one of its employees, overtook tbe automobile and attempted to pass on its left. Before tbe truck bad passed tbe automobile, its driver, without warning, suddenly turned to bis right, across tbe bigbway and in front of tbe moving automobile. Tbe driver of tbe automobile, in order to avoid a collision, turned to bis right, drove off tbe bigbway and crashed into a filling station. As tbe result, plaintiff sustained painful injuries to ber person, for which she demands damages of tbe defendant.\nPlaintiff contended that ber injuries were caused by tbe negligence of tbe driver of defendant\u2019s truck; defendant denied that its driver was negligent as alleged in tbe complaint, and contended that plaintiff\u2019s injuries were caused by tbe negligence'of the driver of tbe automobile; that if its driver was negligent, as alleged in tbe complaint, tbe proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries were not such negligence, but tbe negligence of the driver of tbe automobile.\nTbe jury, in response to tbe issues submitted by tbe court, found that plaintiff was injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant and assessed ber damages at $1,500.\nFrom judgment that plaintiff recover of tbe defendant tbe sum of $1,500, and tbe costs of tbe action, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nJulius Banzei for plaintiff\nSmith & J oyner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 628,
  "last_page_order": 630
}