{ "id": 8599476, "name": "W. J. KILLOUGH v. FRANK WILLIAMS and BERNICE LOCKAMY", "name_abbreviation": "Killough v. Williams", "decision_date": "1944-04-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "254", "last_page": "255", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "224 N.C. 254" } ], "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": "156 S. E., 550", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616805, 8616662 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0092-02", "/nc/200/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S. E., 499", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 S. E., 637", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629367 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S. E., 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630315 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 N. C., 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621817 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N. C., 118", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600359 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0118-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 232, "char_count": 3063, "ocr_confidence": 0.491, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.454604561672698e-08, "percentile": 0.4447185917016784 }, "sha256": "874e978a6a806da4352e1904a88195b3542d25ea611bbf5d7cbbbee3884b2840", "simhash": "1:d76c064c941fc73d", "word_count": 518 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:33.218655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "W. J. KILLOUGH v. FRANK WILLIAMS and BERNICE LOCKAMY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "DeviN, J\".\nTbe plaintiff\u2019s appeal brings up for review tbe ruling of' tbe trial court that tbe evidence offered was insufficient to warrant submission of tbe ease to tbe jury. In order to determine tbe correctness of tbis ruling tbe evidence must be considered in tbe light most favorable for tbe plaintiff.\nFrom tbe evidence introduced on tbe trial it was made to appear tbat on tbe occasion alleged, just after dark, plaintiff was driving bis automobile on a paved highway following defendants\u2019 truck. Defendants\u2019 truck pulled to tbe right, off on the shoulder of the road, apparently as if about to stop, the plaintiff being about 40 feet to the rear and driving about 35 miles per hour. Then suddenly, without signal or warning, defendants\u2019 truck was driven to the left across the highway immediately in front of plaintiff\u2019s automobile, leaving him neither time nor space within which to avoid a collision. Plaintiff sustained substantial injury.\nObviously there was evidence of negligence on the part of defendants, but it is insisted by appellees that according to pl\u00e1intiff\u2019s own testimony he was guilty of contributory negligence in following too closely in the rear of the truck. G. S., 20-152; Allen v. Boltling Co., 223 N. C., 118. However, we do not think contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff conclusively appears from his evidence. Hence he was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury. Hampton v. Hawkins, 219 N. C., 205, 13 S. E. (2d), 227; Smith v. Coach Co., 214 N. C., 314, 199 S. E., 90; Cole v. Koonce, 214 N. C., 188, 198 S. E., 637; Hayes v. Tel. Co., 211 N. C., 192, 189 S. E., 499; Murphy v. Coach Co., 200 N. C., 92, 156 S. E., 550.\nThe judgment of nonsuit was improvidently entered and must be\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "DeviN, J\"." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas W. Ruffin for plaintiff, appellant.", "Smith, Leach \u25a0& Anderson and P. D. Herring for defendants, appellees-" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. J. KILLOUGH v. FRANK WILLIAMS and BERNICE LOCKAMY.\n(Filed 19 April, 1944.)\nNegligence \u00a7 19a\u2014\nIn an action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff caused by-alleged negligence of defendant, where plaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that he was driving his automobile just after dark, on a paved highway, following about forty feet in the rear of defendants\u2019 truck, at about 35-miles per hour, when defendant pulled to the right, off the shoulder of the road, apparently as if to stop, then suddenly, without signal or warning, drove the truck to the left across the road immediately in front of plaintiff\u2019s car, leaving neither time nor space to avoid the collision from which the damage resulted, motion for judgment as of nonsuit was erroneously granted, as contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff does not conclusively appear from his evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stevens, J., at February Term, 1944, of Wake.\nReversed.\nAction for damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendants in tbe operation of a motor truck. At tbe conclusion of tbe plaintiff\u2019s evidence motion for judgment of nonsuit was allowed, and plaintiff appealed.\nThomas W. Ruffin for plaintiff, appellant.\nSmith, Leach \u25a0& Anderson and P. D. Herring for defendants, appellees-" }, "file_name": "0254-01", "first_page_order": 302, "last_page_order": 303 }