{
  "id": 8628278,
  "name": "E. C. HELMS v. GENE LUTHER WEHUNT and GOFORTH BROTHERS, INC., a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Helms v. Wehunt",
  "decision_date": "1957-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "693",
  "last_page": "693",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 N.C. 693"
    }
  ],
  "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": "98 S.E. 2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0247-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1475,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.612,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20729432488148922
    },
    "sha256": "7bd8b268d61ecd7289d53f3cb6bcf9608bcd7ee4bdf62ef36cc72ed8f93d2865",
    "simhash": "1:1ee6e588e41d187f",
    "word_count": 238
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:34.544387+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. C. HELMS v. GENE LUTHER WEHUNT and GOFORTH BROTHERS, INC., a Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nDefendants\u2019 only assignments of error are to the denial by the court\u00bb, below of their moticcjs for., judgment of.nonsuit,, except a formal one. as to the- judgment.\nDefendants state in their brief, \u201cit is not contended that.there is no evidence of negligence on-the part of the defendants to go to the jury.\u201d Defendants\u2019 contention is that the case should have been nonsuited on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nA study of plaintiff\u2019s evidence does not establish the facts necessary to show contributory negligence so clearly that no other conclusion may be reasonably drawn therefrom. Plaintiff has not proved himself out of court as a matter of law. Keener v. Beal, 246 N.C. 247, 98 S.E. 2d 19. The trial judge properly submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the triers of the facts.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert L. Scott and Charles T. Myers for Plaintiff, Appellee,",
      "Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell &~Hickman for Defendants, Appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. C. HELMS v. GENE LUTHER WEHUNT and GOFORTH BROTHERS, INC., a Corporation.\n(Filed 9 October, 1957.)\nAppeal by defendants from Sharp, S. J., Special Civil Term 4 March 1957 of MeCKLENbueg.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision between an automobile and a truck.\nThe jury answered the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages .in plaintiff\u2019s favor.\nFrom judgment on the verdict, defendants appeal.\nRobert L. Scott and Charles T. Myers for Plaintiff, Appellee,\nKennedy, Covington, Lobdell &~Hickman for Defendants, Appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0693-01",
  "first_page_order": 743,
  "last_page_order": 743
}