{
  "id": 8608392,
  "name": "W. W. GASPERSON v. CLAUDE RICE, SR., CLAUDE RICE, JR., and YOUNGBLOOD TRUCK LINES, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gasperson v. Rice",
  "decision_date": "1954-09-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "660",
  "last_page": "662",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "240 N.C. 660"
    }
  ],
  "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": "64 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609499
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598021
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 4584,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7995017119731845e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7162228377021208
    },
    "sha256": "1db4768ced0c39173623be1705edcb931208125f0d2ed85134fe345bd83b0678",
    "simhash": "1:459a8f9f8e5eeda4",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:25.593057+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. W. GASPERSON v. CLAUDE RICE, SR., CLAUDE RICE, JR., and YOUNGBLOOD TRUCK LINES, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHNSON, J.\nWhere jury trial is waived, the findings of fact of the trial court have the force and effect of a verdict by jury and are conclusive on appeal if there be competent evidence to support such findings. Woody v. Barnett, 239 N.C. 420, 79 S.E. 2d 789.\nTbe plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error challenge tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to support tbe findings and conclusion tbat tbe plaintiff was contributorily negligent.\nTbe General County Court found and concluded in substance tbat tbe plaintiff was negligent in tbat before making tbe left turn into tbe side road be did not exercise reasonable care to ascertain tbat sucb movement could be made in safety, as required by G.S. 20-154, and tbat sucb negligence was a proximate cause of tbe plaintiff\u2019s injury and damage. Tbe crucial portion of tbe determinative finding of tbe court below is tbat \u201ctbe plaintiff did not look to bis rear and to bis left and thus failed to observe, as be should have observed, tbe oncoming tractor-trailer . . .\u201d\nTbe record discloses plenary evidence in support of tbe crucial findings which defeat plaintiff\u2019s right to recover. It suffices to note tbat tbe plaintiff on cross-examination stated tbat be looked in bis mirror when be gave tbe left-turn signal 350 feet before turning but tbat be did not look in tbe mirror again. He further admitted be never saw tbe tractor-trailer at any time before tbe collision. As to this, tbe defendants\u2019 evidence discloses tbat as tbe tractor-trailer came alongside tbe plaintiff\u2019s pick-up, tbe plaintiff cut left into tbe side of tbe passing vehicle, with tbe point of impact being behind tbe tractor and at tbe front of tbe trailer.\nPrejudicial error has not been made to appear. Tbe judgment below will be sustained under authority of Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E. 2d 538, and Ervin v. Mills Co., 233 N.C. 415, 64 S.E. 2d 431.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHNSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. J. Pegrarn and William J. Qocke fox plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Adams Adams for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. W. GASPERSON v. CLAUDE RICE, SR., CLAUDE RICE, JR., and YOUNGBLOOD TRUCK LINES, INC.\n(Filed 29 September, 1954.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 55: Appeal ancl Error \u00a7 40d\u2014\nWhere a jury trial is waived, the findings of fact of the trial court have the force and effect of a verdict by jury and are conclusive on appeal if there be competent evidence to support such findings.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 14, 18h (3) \u2014 Plaintiff held guilty of contributory negligence in turning left without seeing that movement could be made in safety.\nIn this trial by the court under agreement of the parties, plaintiff\u2019s testimony to the effect that he looked in his rear-view mirror upon giving a left-turn signal some 350 feet before making the left turn, but did not look in the mirror again and did not see the tractor-trailer, which was following, at any time before collision, together with defendant\u2019s evidence that as the tractor-trailer came alongside plaintiff\u2019s vehicle in an attempt to pass, plaintiff cut left into the side of defendant\u2019s vehicle, with the point of impact being behind the tractor and at the front of the trailer, is held sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence proximately causing his injury, and nonsuit was proper. G.S. 20-154.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Whitmire, Special Judge, at July \u201cA\u201d Term, 1954, of BuNCOmbe.\nCivil action to recover for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a collision of two motor vehicles, beard below on appeal from the General County Court.\nThe collision occurred on the Sweeten Creek Eoad a few miles south of Asheville. Both vehicles were proceeding northwardly. The plaintiff, driving a pick-up truck, was in front. The defendant Claude Bice, Jr., driving the tractor-trailer of the defendant Claude Bice, Sr., was in the act of overtaking and passing the pick-up truck, which was turning left from the highway into a side road.\nIssues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were raised by the pleadings. Jury trial was waived (G.S. 7-287). The judge of the County Court, on the basis of findings and conclusions that both drivers were negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a proximate cause of the collision, entered judgment denying recovery and dismissing the action.\nTo the findings and conclusions adverse to the plaintiff, he excepted and appealed to the Superior Court. There all his exceptions and assignments of error were overruled and the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.\nFrom the judgment of the Superior Court the plaintiff appeals to this Court.\nS. J. Pegrarn and William J. Qocke fox plaintiff, appellant.\nAdams Adams for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0660-01",
  "first_page_order": 704,
  "last_page_order": 706
}