{
  "id": 8614410,
  "name": "J. R. WHITE v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and CHARLOTTE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. City of Charlotte",
  "decision_date": "1937-11-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "211 N. C., 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625443
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255315
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0690-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625443
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0186-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 3094,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.750491230606212e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4948977720322691
    },
    "sha256": "fc8e44dba4338044cbc3308c4a4fec2197fb48546758bfb29939cc9741b8a9e5",
    "simhash": "1:7d1eede4e41ac7f9",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. R. WHITE v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and CHARLOTTE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Oueiam.\nThe evidence in this case was substantially the same as in White v. Charlotte, 211 N. C., 186, except that one additional witness was offered, whose testimony tends to show contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. White v. Charlotte, supra, is controlling.\nThere is a further reason why the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. Actions for wrongful death are purely statutory and the right of action rests exclusively in the administrator. Speaking to the subject in Gurley v. Power Co., 172 N. C., 690, Brown, J., says: \u201cAn action for the recovery of wages of a minor . . . lies in favor of the parent; but if the child dies from the injury the action abates. The only action that lies in such case, in this State, is for wrongful death, as authorized by Revisal 59, and that embraces everything. In such action tbe value of the life before 21, as well as after 21 years of age, is recoverable. No other action lies than this.\u201d Killian v. R. R., 128 N. C., 262.\nIt is true that the father was entitled to the services of his daughter, if she had lived, till her majority, but when the death of the daughter ensued the cause of action abated. The question of the father\u2019s right to share in the recovery for the prospective wages up to 21 years would be a matter between him and the administrator. Gurley v. Power Co., supra; Killian v. R. R., supra; Insurance Co. v. Brame, 95 U. S., page 756.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Newitt for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. M. Scarborough and B. M. Boyd for defendants, appellees. \u2022"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. R. WHITE v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and CHARLOTTE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION.\n(Filed 24 November, 1937.)\n1. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 17\u2014\nJudgment of nonsuit in action against municipality to recovery for negligence resulting in death of plaintiff\u2019s daughter sustained on authority of White v. Charlotte, 211 N. C., 186.\n2. Abatement and Revival \u00a7 11 \u2014 Parent\u2019s right of action to recover for loss of services of child abates upon death of child.\nA parent\u2019s right of action to recover for loss of services of his child, upon allegation that the child\u2019s death was caused by the negligence of defendant, abates upon the death of the child, the sole remedy being an action for wrongful death, C. S., 160, and the question of the father\u2019s right to share in the recovery being a matter between him and the child\u2019s administrator.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hill, Special J udge, at 20 September Extra Term, 1937, of MeckxeNbukg.\nAffirmed.\nTbis is an action instituted by tbe plaintiff, father of Sarab Elizabeth \"White, for damages for loss of services of said infant, whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligent conduct of the defendants.\nThe plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Sarah Elizabeth White, an infant, instituted an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of said infant, against these defendants, upon substantially the same allegations of negligence. The facts are fully set out in the former decision, White v. Charlotte, 211 N. C., 186. From judgment of nonsuit the plaintiff appealed.\nJohn Newitt for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. M. Scarborough and B. M. Boyd for defendants, appellees. \u2022"
  },
  "file_name": "0539-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 610
}