{ "id": 8625667, "name": "JESSE MANGUM v. JOHN HENRY WINSTEAD et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Mangum v. Winstead", "decision_date": "1932-02-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "252", "last_page": "254", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "202 N.C. 252" } ], "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": "201 N. C., 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628770, 8628751 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0833-02", "/nc/201/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S. E., 926", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "case_ids": [ 2026135 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/161/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624928, 8624887 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0336-02", "/nc/201/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S. E., 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269625 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0179-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 219, "char_count": 3262, "ocr_confidence": 0.481, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.33427914137079034 }, "sha256": "b4c76f239e2b347f62aaa836cacad1c140eecbd81440c559d1e0e1ebacc7ebbd", "simhash": "1:f23c7de43456a75d", "word_count": 556 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JESSE MANGUM v. JOHN HENRY WINSTEAD et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIn the face of the verdict, which is not challenged by the appeal, it- would be singular if the plaintiff should also recover in the instant case. One who causes or contributes to- an injury by his own negligence is not entitled to damages therefor. Neither plaintiff nor defendant is permitted to recover for injuries resulting from a collision when the negligence of each contributed thereto as a proximate cause. Construction Co. v. R. R., 184 N. C., 179, 113 S. E., 672. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of nonsuit on plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, which seems correct upon the evidence, must, upon its own merits and for this additional reason, be sustained. In any view of the ease, the plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumption against error. Jackson v. Bell. 201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926; Bailey v. McKay, 198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893. To prevail on appeal, he who alleges error must successfully handle the laboring oar. Frazier v. R. R., ante 11; Poindexter v. R. R., 201 N. C., 833, 159 S. E., 926.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Braiuley & Gantt for plaintiff.", "F. 0. Carver, Victor S. Bryant and B. I. Satterfield for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JESSE MANGUM v. JOHN HENRY WINSTEAD et al.\n(Filed 17 February, 1932.)\n1. Negligence D c \u2014 Nonsuit on plaintiff\u2019s action will be sustained where jury finds on defendant\u2019s cross-action that plaintiff was negligent.\nWhere, in an action to recover damages sustained in an automobile collision, a judgment as of nonsuit is entered on the plaintiff\u2019s action, and on the defendant\u2019s cross-action the jury answers the issue as to the plaintiff\u2019s negligence \u201cyes,\u201d and finds that the defendant was not guilty of negligence and awards damages: Held,, upon the plaintiff\u2019s appeal from the judgment as of nonsuit on his action the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was negligent would bar his recovery, and the judgment will be sustained.\n2. Appeal and Error J d \u2014 Burden is on appellant to show error.\nOn appeal the burden is on the appellant to overcome the presumption against error, the burden of showing error being upon him.\nAppeal by plaintiff from MacBae, Special Judge, at June Term, 1931, of DURHAM.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff and bis Buick automobile, caused by a collision between said automobile, while being driven by plaintiff\u2019s son, and a Chevrolet sedan owned by the defendant, 0. H. Winstead, and operated at the time by his son for family use.\nThe defendant set up a counterclaim and asked for damages sustained in the same collision by reason of the alleged negligence of the plaintiff.\nJudgment of nonsuit was entered on the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, and the jury returned the following verdict on the defendant\u2019s counterclaim :\n\u201c1. Was the defendant, 0. H. Winstead, damaged by the negligence of the plaintiff, as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. Did the defendants contribute to their injury or damage, by their own, or either of their own, negligence, as alleged in the reply ? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. What damage, if any, is the defendant, C. H. Winstead, entitled to recover of the plaintiff? Answer: $181.10.\u201d\nThe plaintiff appeals from the judgment of nonsuit entered on his cause of action and from the judgment rendered on the verdict.\nBraiuley & Gantt for plaintiff.\nF. 0. Carver, Victor S. Bryant and B. I. Satterfield for defendants." }, "file_name": "0252-01", "first_page_order": 318, "last_page_order": 320 }