{
  "id": 8631150,
  "name": "D. W. HOOPER v. ROBERT H. GLENN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hooper v. Glenn",
  "decision_date": "1949-06-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "573",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 571"
    }
  ],
  "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": "49 S.E. 2d 650",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S.E. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0240-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 465,
    "char_count": 8123,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6361208319457237e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6903180455694521
    },
    "sha256": "eb547099d420d7244b5989814949880c3db296116bf206631d271b9e35378ce4",
    "simhash": "1:a82783a396728ceb",
    "word_count": 1374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. W. HOOPER v. ROBERT H. GLENN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EkviN, J.\nThe defendant reserved an exception to the refusal of the trial judge to permit him to amend his answer so as to set up a new plea of contributory negligence in these words, namely: \u201cThe defendant, Robert H. Glenn denies that he had used or was under the influence of intoxicants at the time of the accident, but avers that if he was intoxicated and if he and the plaintiff, D. W. Hooper, had been drinking intoxicants together, and the use of intoxicants by defendant Glenn was one of the proximate causes of the accident resulting in injuries to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff himself was guilty of contributory negligence in that he used intoxicants with the defendant Glenn, that he knew that the defendant Glenn had been drinking intoxicants and was under the influence thereof, hut nevertheless the plaintiff continued to ride in the truck with the defendant Glenn, and that such conduct on the part of the plaintiff constituted contributory negligence, and, therefore, this defendant pleads the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, D. W. Hooper, in this respect in addition to the other facts pleaded as contributory negligence in his answer to the amended complaint in bar of the plaintiff\u2019s recovery in this action.\u201d\nThe court expressly stated that its ruling denying the defendant leave to file the amendment to the answer was made in the exercise of its discretion. This being so, the defendant\u2019s exception is untenable. It is a firmly established rule of practice in this jurisdiction that an application for leave to amend a pleading after time for filing bas expired, is a matter addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, and that a ruling thereon is not subject to review on appeal unless tbe circumstances affirmatively disclose a manifest abuse by tbe court of its discretionary power. G.S. 1-163; Hogsed v. Pearlman, 213 N.C. 240, 195 S.E. 789. Tbe record presently presented does not justify an inference tbat tbe court abused its discretion in tbe premises. While some of tbe witnesses called to tbe stand by counsel for tbe defense testified tbat tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant bore tbe odors of liquor when removed from tbe wreckage of tbe truck after tbe collision, tbe plaintiff\u2019s cause of action was not predicated, either in whole or in part, upon any allegation or evidence tbat the defendant lost control of tbe truck by reason of intoxication. Besides, tbe defendant testified in bis own behalf with unvarying positiveness tbat be was completely sober at the place and time named in tbe pleadings. Moreover, tbe defendant did not ask for leave to amend until all tbe evidence was in, and both sides bad rested.\nTbe defendant assigns as error tbe refusal of tbe court to submit to tbe jury this issue: \u201cWas tbe plaintiff, Daniel W. Hooper, guilty of contributory negligence as one of tbe proximate causes of bis injuries, as alleged in tbe answer of Eobert H. Glenn?\u201d Tbe answer alleged on this phase of tbe case \u201ctbat tbe accident . . . was due to and proximately arose on account of tbe careless and negligent conduct of tbe plaintiff himself in tbat tbe plaintiff bad been drinking intoxicating liquors and became excited and interfered with tbe operation of tbe truck in trying to turn tbe truck to tbe right, and this defendant pleads the contributory negligence of tbe plaintiff in bar of bis right to recover in this action.\u201d\nNo evidence was adduced at tbe trial tending to show any attempt on tbe part of tbe plaintiff to interfere with tbe operation of the truck outside of tbe testimony of tbe defendant to tbe effect tbat tbe plaintiff made this exclamation just as tbe other automobile was about to collide bead-on with tbe truck: \u201cLook out, look out, Eob! Tbat car is going to bit you.\u201d Tbe defendant testified, however, tbat this declaration \u201cdidn\u2019t have no effect on me.\u201d Thus, it appears tbat there was no evidence to support tbe plea of contributory negligence set out in tbe answer, and tbat tbe court rightly declined to submit to tbe jury tbe issue in question. Kjellander v. Baking Co., 197 N.C. 206, 148 S.E. 40.\nTbe defendant assigns three portions of tbe charge as error. Standing alone, these excerpts seem somewhat wanting in dexterity of statement. But when they are placed in their context and tbe instructions of tbe court are read as a whole, it appears tbat tbe charge was free from prejudicial error. Wyatt v. Coach Co., 229 N.C. 340, 49 S.E. 2d 650.\nSince no reversible error bas been shown, the verdict and judgment will be sustained.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EkviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Higgins & McMichael for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Deal <& Hutchins for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. W. HOOPER v. ROBERT H. GLENN.\n(Filed 16 June, 1949.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 22b: Appeal and Error \u00a7 40b\u2014\nAn application for leave to amend a pleading after time for filing has expired is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 20a\u2014\nIn this action by a passenger against the driver of the vehicle, defendant alleged that the accident was caused by the interference of the passenger with defendant\u2019s driving when they were confronted with an emergency. The only evidence of interference was that the passenger exclaimed \u201cLook out . . . that car is going to hit you,\u201d and defendant testified that the exclamation had no effect on him. Held: The refusal of the court to submit an issue of contributory negligence was not error.\n3. Trial \u00a7 38\u2014\nThe refusal to submit an issue tendered is not error when there is no evidence in support of such issue adduced at the trial.\n4. Appeal and! Error \u00a7 39f\u2014\nExceptions to the charge will not be sustained when the charge is free from prejudicial error when construed contextually.\nAppeal by defendant from Goggin, Special Judge, and a jury, at the September Term, 1948, of Foesyth.\nOn 15 February, 1947, the plaintiff, D. W. Hooper, was a guest in a motor truck which the defendant, Robert H. Glenn, was driving along a public highway in Forsyth County. The truck suddenly left the road and crashed against a nearby tree, inflicting substantial personal injuries upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for such personal injuries, and the defendant answered, denying liability to plaintiff in the premises.\nWhen viewed most strongly in his favor, the plaintiff\u2019s testimony tended to show that the defendant drove the truck at a speed of not less than fifty miles per hour along his left half of an unpaved public highway having a width of thirty feet; that the defendant met another automobile proceeding in the opposite direction \u201con its extreme right-hand side of the highway,\u201d i.e., the defendant\u2019s left-hand side of the highway; and that the defendant thereupon abruptly jerked the steering wheel of the truck to his right, left the highway, crashed against a tree standing some distance to the right of the highway, and injured the plaintiff, notwithstand-ing that at least two-thirds of the roadway was open for the free and unobstructed passage of the truck.\nTbe defendant offered evidence, however, indicating that he operated the truck on his right half of the highway at a speed of about thirty-five miles per hour; that he met the other automobile proceeding in the opposite direction along his right half of the highway at a speed approximating seventy miles an hour; that both he and the plaintiff were placed in imminent danger of death or enormous bodily harm in a threatened head-on collision between the truck and the rapidly approaching automobile ; and that he thereupon drove the truck from the highway in a reasonable effort- to extricate himself and the plaintiff from the impending peril Avhich had arisen without fault on his part.\nThe court submitted these issues to the jury:\n1: Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, Robert H. Glenn, as alleged in the complaint ?\n2. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?\nThe jury answered the first issue \u201cYes\u201d and the second issue \u201c$15,000.00.\u201d\nJudgment was entered on the verdict, and the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nHiggins & McMichael for plaintiff, appellee.\nDeal <& Hutchins for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 627,
  "last_page_order": 629
}