{
  "id": 8611259,
  "name": "JOHN HORTON v. CARLOS PETERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horton v. Peterson",
  "decision_date": "1953-10-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "446",
  "last_page": "448",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "238 N.C. 446"
    }
  ],
  "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": "32 S.E. 2d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 688",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612616
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617976
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0690-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626497
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 307",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167679
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0707-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 921",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 632",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4660,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.796484210511942e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45710290445504737
    },
    "sha256": "4f53539d01f273401b821fc4d1afc236a2d167bb16cfb008b1fcd1fd8b0b3be9",
    "simhash": "1:a766ec92459cfc53",
    "word_count": 786
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:50.226870+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN HORTON v. CARLOS PETERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Denny, J.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence when considered in the light most favorable to him, as it must be on motion for judgment as of nonsuit, is sufficient in our opinion to require its submission to the jury on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. Levy v. Aluminum, Co., 232 N.C. 158, 59 S.E. 2d 632; Dawson v. Transportation Co., 230 N.C. 36, 51 S.E. 2d 921; Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E. 2d 307; Hobbs v. Brewer, 226 N.C. 146, 37 S.E. 2d 121; Killough v. Williams, 224 N.C. 254, 29 S.E. 2d 697; Stevens v. Rostan, 196 N.C. 314, 145 S.E. 555.\nA nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence should not be granted unless the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, so clearly establishes such negligence that no other reasonable inference or conclusion can be drawn therefrom. Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E. 2d 756; Levy v. Aluminum Co., supra; Dawson v. Transportation Co., supra; Bundy v. Powell, supra; Atkins v. Transportation Co., 224 N.C. 688, 32 S.E. 2d 209.\nAccording to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence adduced in the trial below, the defendant was operating his truck on the left-hand side of the highway at the time of the collision in violation of G-.S. 20-146 and G-.S. 20-164.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Denny, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. 0. Berry and W. F. Anglin for appellant.",
      "Fonts & Watson for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN HORTON v. CARLOS PETERSON.\n(Filed 21 October, 1953.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 Si, 18h (2) (3) \u2014 Evidence held for jury in this action for collision at intersection of highway and driveway.\nEvidence tending to show that plaintiff, preparing to enter the highway, stopped his truck in a driveway on the west side of the highway, with the front of the truck extending about three feet into the western edge of the highway, and that defendant\u2019s truck, which was traveling north, struck plaintiff\u2019s truck, although nine feet of the hard surface was clear to defendant\u2019s right of plaintiff\u2019s truck, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence, G.S. 20-146, G.S. 20-164, and not to require dismissal as a matter of law for plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 19c\u2014\nNonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence should not be granted unless plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, so ylearly establishes such negligence that no other reasonable inference or conclusion can be drawn therefrom.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, J., July-August Term, 1953, of Mitchell.\nCivil action to recover damages resulting from tbe alleged negligence of tbe defendant.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence shows that a collision occurred on 21 April, 1953, about 7:00 a.m., between a Chevrolet truck driven by the defendant and a Ford truck driven by the plaintiff, on the twelve-foot black top highway leading from Relief in Yancey County, North Carolina, to Green Mountain ; that the highway, which runs north and south, was straight at the place of the collision; that no other traffic was on the road; that there was no obstruction to prevent the defendant from seeing the plaintiff\u2019s truck for a distance of about 125 to 150 feet as he approached from the south.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence further tends to show that his truck was parked on the western side of the highway headed south; that he backed into the private entrance to the sawmill of H. Ii. Lewis, located on the west side of the highway, and when he started to enter the highway for the purpose of proceeding northward thereon, Mr. Lewis, who was standing near-by watching him, called to him to stop; that he stopped with the front of his truck extending about three feet into the western edge of the highway; that in response to Mr. Lewis\u2019 call, the plaintiff looked back to see what he wanted and immediately the defendant\u2019s truck ran into plaintiff\u2019s truck. The plaintiff did not see the defendant\u2019s truck before the collision. The defendant\u2019s truck was going north and, according to the evidence, nine feet of the hard surfaced portion of the highway was clear together with a two-foot shoulder to the east of plaintiff\u2019s truck, leaving open on the defendant\u2019s right-hand side of the highway a total of eleven feet for him to pass the plaintiff\u2019s truck; that the defendant\u2019s truck struck and damaged the right front fender, bumper, grill and frame of the plaintiff\u2019s truck. The only damage to the defendant\u2019s truck was to the left rear wheel and the driveshaft.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the defendant demurred thereto and moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The court granted the motion and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nW. 0. Berry and W. F. Anglin for appellant.\nFonts & Watson for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0446-01",
  "first_page_order": 496,
  "last_page_order": 498
}