{
  "id": 8632684,
  "name": "FANNIE F. BOGER v. DR. O. L. ADER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boger v. Ader",
  "decision_date": "1943-01-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "758",
  "last_page": "759",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 758"
    }
  ],
  "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": "228 U. S., 233",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3667724
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/228/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631440
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0673-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629793
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0384-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1613,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20736826741636288
    },
    "sha256": "6c424e36c1e3906071f086b9c1614c959aac6e2131e5abba767a3251980475ad",
    "simhash": "1:923f0bbbe47e2f1d",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FANNIE F. BOGER v. DR. O. L. ADER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe evidence in this case invokes the application of the principles of law discussed and decided by this Court in Lippard v. Johnson, 215 N. C., 384, 1 S. E. (2d), 889; see also Mauney v. Luzier's, Inc., 215 N. C., 673, 2 S. E. (2d), 888, and Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S., 233, 57 L. Ed., 815. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case for the jury.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Porter and W. Reads Johnson for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Womble, Garlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FANNIE F. BOGER v. DR. O. L. ADER.\n(Filed 8 January, 1943.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bobbitt, J., at September Term, 1942, of Forsyth.\nAffirmed.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by an overdose of elixir of bromide prescribed by defendant.\nPlaintiff, who was attending her mother during her last illness, had a \u201cnervous spell\u201d which was a recurrence of nervousness from which she bad been suffering. Tbe defendant, tbe attending physician, examined her and tben prescribed, prepared and gave her a dose of elixir of' bromide. Thereafter she became numb. She remained in that condition for several hours. Then splotches or big spots appeared on her skin and she had the sensation of ants crawling on her body. The defendant said her condition was due to the reaction of the medicine. Later she suffered other physical ailments which she alleges proximately resulted from the overdose of bromide.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff the court below, on motion of defendant, entered judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nWilliam Porter and W. Reads Johnson for plaintiff, appellant.\nWomble, Garlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0758-02",
  "first_page_order": 802,
  "last_page_order": 803
}