{
  "id": 8630343,
  "name": "MARY M. CROOM v. A. W. PETTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Croom v. Petty",
  "decision_date": "1939-04-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 465"
    }
  ],
  "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": "279 N. W., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 A. L. R., 233",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2224,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32366153393499003
    },
    "sha256": "de4cb5250d4108d553363d086b61052bc3319796744867ee1200f7105e84028e",
    "simhash": "1:4b43747956e82468",
    "word_count": 362
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY M. CROOM v. A. W. PETTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nA careful examination of the exceptions in this case discloses no error justifying a retrial. The judgment is affirmed. Johnston v. Johnston, 118 A. L. R., 233, 279 N. W., 139.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bunn & Arendell for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Garmon J. Stuart, Wm. H. Yarborough, Jr., and J. M. Broughton for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY M. CROOM v. A. W. PETTY.\n(Filed 19 April, 1939.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7\u00a7 13, 18g\u2014\nThe evidence tended to show that defendant stopped his automobile in the line of travel of pedestrians at the intersection of streets in a city, and that as plaintiff pedestrian, whose path was thus blocked, attempted to walk behind the car in crossing the street, defendant put the car in reverse without warning, causing the injury in suit. Sold: The overruling of defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit was not error.\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., at February Term, 1939, of Wake. No error.\nThis is an action for damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant.\nThe evidence is substantially as follows :\nOn Saturday, January 29, 1938, at about the hour of five o\u2019clock p.m., the plaintiff was walking along the north sidewalk of Hillsboro Street, going west, in the city of Raleigh, North Carolina. Defendant at said hour of the day was driving his automobile along Harrington Street, going south, and was crossing the intersection with Hillsboro Street. On reaching Harrington Street, which crosses Hillsboro Street at right angles, plaintiff observed the approach of defendant\u2019s automobile, which was coming from her right. Defendant stopped his ear directly in the line connecting the sidewalks and the course or line of walk followed by pedestrians. As her path was blocked, plaintiff proceeded to walk back of defendant\u2019s automobile, and, when she had practically gotten by the same, defendant put his automobile in reverse, and, without signal, ran it backward against the plaintiff, knocking her down and seriously injuring her.\nThere is further evidence as to the injury received by plaintiff.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit, which motion was denied, and defendant appealed.\nBunn & Arendell for plaintiff, appellee.\nGarmon J. Stuart, Wm. H. Yarborough, Jr., and J. M. Broughton for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 532
}