{
  "id": 8628576,
  "name": "HARRY E. HOLLINGSWORTH v. RICHARD GRIER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hollingsworth v. Grier",
  "decision_date": "1949-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "231 N.C. 108"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628854
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 623",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165992
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 774",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0774-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 251",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628569
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0778-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221437
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0165-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 3859,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.65478059742001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5280927575314236
    },
    "sha256": "d3359ad1febeb857767f2dae1345e493857b9d292e623e657468ac792dc53acb",
    "simhash": "1:3a3e316aa0d40c5e",
    "word_count": 655
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:15.383158+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HARRY E. HOLLINGSWORTH v. RICHARD GRIER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe question for decision is the sufficiency of the complaint to survive the demurrer. The trial court thought it good as against the challenge. We are inclined to a different view.\nTrue it is, a complaint may not be overthrown by demurrer on the ground of the plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence unless such negligence appear patently and unquestionably upon the face of the complaint. Ramsey v. Nash Furn. Co., 209 N.C. 165, 183 S.E. 536. But here, we think such negligence does so appear on the face of the complaint. The plaintiff says be saw the defendant\u2019s automobile too late to avoid a collision. This was negligence on bis part which contributed to the injury, as be was evidently \u201coutrunning bis headlights\u201d or inattentive to bis own safety. Note the allegation is not that the plaintiff was unable to see the defendant\u2019s car in time to avoid a collision, but that be did not see it in time. He omits to state whether be was keeping a proper lookout or the collision was without fault on bis part. The subject is fully discussed in the following, recent cases: Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778, 47 S.E. 2d 251; Riggs v. Oil Co., 228 N.C. 774, 47 S.E. 2d 254; Bus Co. v. Coble Dairy Products Co., 229 N.C. 352, 49 S.E. 2d 623; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155, 52 S.E. 2d 355.\nNo doubt the plaintiff may desire to reform bis pleading.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Laurence Jones, C. M. Llewellyn and Sam H. Wilds for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant, appellant. i"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARRY E. HOLLINGSWORTH v. RICHARD GRIER.\n(Filed 9 November, 1949.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 16\u2014\nIn negligent injury actions, demurrer on the ground of contributory negligence should not be sustained unless such negligence appear patently and unquestionably upon the face of the complaint.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 8d, 18a\u2014\nThe complaint alleged that plaintiff was driving his car on his right side of the highway on a cloudy, foggy and rainy night, when he suddenly came upon defendant\u2019s car which was parked without lights in his lane-of traffic, and that immediately upon seeing the parked vehicle, plaintiff swerved his car to the left, but did not have time to avoid the collision. Held: Defendant\u2019s demurrer should have been sustained on the ground that contributory negligence appeared patently and unquestionably upon the face of the complaint.\nAppeal by defendant from Bennett, Special Judge, August Term, 1949, of CabaRkus.\nCivil action to recover damages arising from a rear-end collision with, defendant\u2019s automobile alleged parked on the highway.\nThe gist of the complaint follows:\n3. That on the 21st day of January, 1949, about 7 p.m. the plaintiff was operating his automobile in a northern direction on Highway 29, about 200 yards north of Lowe\u2019s Trading Center in Kannapolis at a rate-of speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour in his right-hand lane of said highway on a slight downgrade, the weather being cloudy and foggy with a light drizzle of rain falling, when he suddenly came upon the automobile of the defendant parked directly in his lane of traffic without any lights.\n4. That immediately upon seeing the automobile of the defendant parked directly in the middle of the right-hand lane of said highway, the plaintiff swerved bis ear to tbe left as far as be possibly could witbin tbe limit of time and space but was unable to avoid collision witb tbe automobile of tbe defendant wbicb said collision caused tbe damages hereinafter alleged.\nTbe defendant interposed a demurrer to tbe complaint on tbe ground tbat it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in tbat upon tbe face of tbe complaint, tbe plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence is manifest and apparent. Tbe defendant also moved for judgment on tbe pleadings.\nFrom judgment overruling tbe demurrer and denying tbe motion for judgment on tbe pleadings, tbe defendant appeals, assigning error.\nJ. Laurence Jones, C. M. Llewellyn and Sam H. Wilds for plaintiff, appellee.\nHartsell & Hartsell for defendant, appellant. i"
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 159
}