{
  "id": 8628284,
  "name": "R. W. ASKEW, Administrator of the Estate of JAMES HOWARD ASKEW, Deceased, v. CAROLINA COACH COMPANY and E. C. MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Askew v. Carolina Coach Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-06-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "468",
  "last_page": "469",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 N.C. 468"
    }
  ],
  "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., 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 845",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616281
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0845-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 2929,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531344491512826
    },
    "sha256": "15074def3ca002173ddaa54ad6f729c41f9d418c2e0a44f3c7ecb1aa27e90b38",
    "simhash": "1:543fb520a66a6b4f",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:36.695844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. W. ASKEW, Administrator of the Estate of JAMES HOWARD ASKEW, Deceased, v. CAROLINA COACH COMPANY and E. C. MILLER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s intestate died as the result of a collision between an automobile he was driving and a large passenger bus of the corporate defendant driven by defendant Miller. The plaintiff relied almost entirely on circumstantial evidence to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendants.\nIn submitting this phase of the case to the jury, and referring to this type of evidence, the trial judge used this language: \u201cThese concurring and coincidental facts are arranged in combination by a mental process of reasoning and inferences, enlightened by common observation, experience, reason, and knowledge. Where presumption arises from a number of connected dependent facts each essential to the series must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Such evidence is like a chain in which no link must be missing or broken, which destroys its continuity.\u201d Plaintiff having duly excepted, assigns this instruction as error.\nWhile the use of the phrase \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d in the instruction complained of was evidently an inadvertence on the part of the judge, it was none the less prejudicial to the plaintiff, and necessitates a new trial. True, in preceding portions of the charge the correct rule as to the quantum of proof required of the plaintiff on the first issue was given to tbe jury, but tbe later expression carried tbe implication that witb respect to tbe circumstantial evidence relied on by tbe plaintiff a bigber degree of proof was necessary to establish bis case. Tbis was at least conflicting and confusing. Young v. Comrs., 190 N. C., 845, 130 S. E., 833.\nWhether tbe plaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to warrant its submission to tbe jury is not presented on tbis appeal, and is not decided.\nFor tbe reason stated, there must be a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Dimer Long and Clarence Ross for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Sapp, Sapp .<& Athinson for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. W. ASKEW, Administrator of the Estate of JAMES HOWARD ASKEW, Deceased, v. CAROLINA COACH COMPANY and E. C. MILLER.\n(Filed 5 June, 1942.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 29c\u2014\nA charge to the effect that, since plaintiff was relying on circumstantial evidence to prove actionable negligence, plaintiff had the burden of proving each fact constituting an essential link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt is erroneous and constitutes prejudicial error.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 39\u2014\nConflicting instructions upon the burden of proof, one correct and the other erroneous, must be helcl-fov reversible error.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Dixon, Special Judge, at January Term, 1942, of AlamaNCe.\nNew trial.\nThis was an action to recover damages for wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants in the operation of a passenger bus on the highway.\nThe issue of negligence was answered by the jury in favor of the defendants, and from judgment on the verdict plaintiff appealed.\nJ. Dimer Long and Clarence Ross for plaintiff, appellant.\nSapp, Sapp .<& Athinson for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0468-01",
  "first_page_order": 504,
  "last_page_order": 505
}