{
  "id": 8630060,
  "name": "EDITH FAISON v. C. L. EFIRD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faison v. Efird",
  "decision_date": "1932-05-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "854",
  "last_page": "854",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 854"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 S. E., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0403-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S. E., 98",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657453
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0662-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20732984818806038
    },
    "sha256": "3cdb9d493a37cdffcd0674acddeded63dbc517ebd2cf6ffadc548f868de38719",
    "simhash": "1:71854fcb47c5ce24",
    "word_count": 380
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EDITH FAISON v. C. L. EFIRD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of Bowman v. Howard, 182 N. C., 662, 110 S. E., 98, and cases there cited. See, also, Gooding v. Pope, 194 N. C., 403, 140 S. E., 21.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aaron Goldberg, Alton A. Lennon and Newman & Sinclair for plaintiff.",
      "Rountree, Madder <& Rountree for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDITH FAISON v. C. L. EFIRD.\n(Filed 18 May, 1932.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barnhill, J., at December Term, 1931, of New Hanover.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged negligent infliction of personal injuries. Tbe plaintiff was walking on tbe public bigbway, about six miles from tbe city of Wilmington, wben sbe was struck by defendant\u2019s automobile and injured.\nTbe jury answered tbe issue of negligence in favor of tbe defendant. Thereupon, at tbe trial term and. before entry of judgment, tbe plaintiff \u25a0 lodged a motion to set aside tbe verdict for misconduct of the jury in taking two toy automobiles into tbe jury room.\nTbe following is tbe material part of tbe court\u2019s order:\n\u201cDuring tbe trial witnesses for tbe plaintiff and witnesses for tbe defendant used two toy automobiles to illustrate tbe manner in wbicb they testified tbe wreck occurred, and counsel both for tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant used tbe same toy automobiles in illustrating tbeir argument to tbe jury. After tbe jury bad retired for deliberation, while returning from supper, one of tbe jurors took tbe two toy automobiles to tbe jury room. There tbe various jurors used tbe same to illustrate tbeir understanding, pro and con, of tbe testimony of tbe respective witnesses, tbe deliberations finally resulting in tbe verdict wbicb appears of record.\n\u201cKnowledge of tbe presence of tbe toy automobiles in tbe jury room was not called to tbe attention of tbe counsel for tbe plaintiff until after tbe verdict, and tbeir motion was made in due time.\n\u201cUpon tbe bearing of tbe motion tbe court is of the- opinion that tbe use of such toy automobiles merely aided tbe respective jurors in better presenting tbeir various views as to tbe testimony of tbe respective witnesses, and was in no wise prejudicial to either party, and therefore denies tbe motion, and tbe plaintiff excepts. Motion to set aside tbe verdict in tbe discretion of tbe court is denied.\u201d\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning errors,\nAaron Goldberg, Alton A. Lennon and Newman & Sinclair for plaintiff.\nRountree, Madder <& Rountree for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0854-01",
  "first_page_order": 920,
  "last_page_order": 920
}