{
  "id": 8616701,
  "name": "C. A. ISENHOUR, Administrator of KENNETH E. MICHAEL, v. FRANK EFIRD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Isenhour v. Efird",
  "decision_date": "1930-08-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "806",
  "last_page": "807",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 806"
    }
  ],
  "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": "132 S. E., 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630491
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0589-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1755,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20718717577742948
    },
    "sha256": "73373b914fe55bfc7ebdcdf50dd913ed411bb82267f5ee175b5c777a632bd904",
    "simhash": "1:7f2a1fe0067d743f",
    "word_count": 294
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. A. ISENHOUR, Administrator of KENNETH E. MICHAEL, v. FRANK EFIRD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was sufficient evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury.\nThe evidence as to the earnings of deceased while law librarian at the University of West Virginia was weak and uncertain, but it cannot be said as a matter of law, that the testimony objected to constituted no evidence at all. Smith v. Coach Line, 191 N. C., 589, 132 S. E., 567. Certain excerpts are selected from tbe charge of the trial judge which discloses that the words \u201cproximate cause\u201d do not appear, but in the outset the trial judge instructed the jury: \u201cBut negligence alone is not sufficient to entitle one to recover. One who claims damages on account of negligence of another must show two propositions by the greater weight of the evidence. . . . First, that the injury or death was caused by the negligence of defendant; secondly, that the particular negligence alleged was the proximate cause of the death and injury, and proximate cause is the real efficient cause without which the injury or death would not have occurred.\u201d\nExceptions were also taken to the instruction of the trial judge to the jury relative to the issue of damages. However, we do not think that such exceptions are of sufficient weight to overthrow the judgment.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hartsell <& Hartsell for plaintiff.",
      "J ohn M. Bobinson and Hunter M. J ones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. A. ISENHOUR, Administrator of KENNETH E. MICHAEL, v. FRANK EFIRD.\n(Filed 20 August, 1930.)\nCivil actioN for wrongful death, before Stack, J., at October Term, 1929, of Cabarrus.\nThe plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant for wrongful death resulting from an automobile collision upon'a public highway. Judgment was duly rendered upon the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.\nHartsell <& Hartsell for plaintiff.\nJ ohn M. Bobinson and Hunter M. J ones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0806-02",
  "first_page_order": 874,
  "last_page_order": 875
}