{
  "id": 8629408,
  "name": "PEARL J. HARTSELL v. C. G. HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hartsell v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1935-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "870",
  "last_page": "871",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 870"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 S. E., 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610324
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S. E., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627969
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S. E., 467",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270496
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0363-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 1981,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073178783782375
    },
    "sha256": "6973d84582916f4990c83faa3255fe4e606dde448d9859e63618d0775b471c54",
    "simhash": "1:a8b3ada0fe3cc13f",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PEARL J. HARTSELL v. C. G. HARRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee, Cueiam.\nA careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that no reversible error has been made to appear. Rierson v. Iron Co., 184 N. C., 363, 114 S. E., 467.\nThe rule for the admeasurement of damages in cases of wrongful death has been stated in a number of recent decisions, notably Carpenter v. Power Co., 191 N. C., 130, 131 S. E., 400, and Purnell v. R. R., 190 N. C., 573, 130 S. E., 313.\nThe result will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee, Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sartsell & Sartsell for plaintiff.",
      "B. W. Blackwelder for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PEARL J. HARTSELL v. C. G. HARRIS.\n(Filed 28 January, 1935.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Siaclc, J., at August Term, 1934, of Cabarrus.\nCivil action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the neglect or wrongful act of the defendant.\nTbe facts are these:\nOn the morning of 27 January, 1934, the defendant and Harry Mowrer, who were fellow employees at a filling station, left Concord about 1:30 a.m., in company with a Miss Hahn and plaintiff\u2019s intestate. They were riding in the defendant\u2019s Plymouth coupe, all on the same seat, the defendant driving, Miss Hahn sitting next to him, Mowrer next, and plaintiff\u2019s intestate in Mowrer\u2019s lap. At a service station two miles from Concord, \u201cWe had some sandwiches and some drinks. . . . We were out on a pleasure trip together.\u201d\nAt China Grove the defendant ran his car into the rear of a parked truck, severely injuring Mowrer and killing plaintiff\u2019s intestate. Plaintiff\u2019s intestate was 23 or 24 years old. She was employed in a hosiery mill, earning $15 per week at the time of her death.\nThe jury returned the following verdict:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff\u2019s intestate injured and killed by the negligence of the defendant ? Answer : 'Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, what amount, if anything, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: '$1,000.\u2019 \u201d\nJudgment on the verdict for plaintiff, from which an appeal was taken by the plaintiff, alleging inadequacy of amount awarded.\nSartsell & Sartsell for plaintiff.\nB. W. Blackwelder for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0870-02",
  "first_page_order": 938,
  "last_page_order": 939
}