{
  "id": 8616552,
  "name": "MARSELL WOMBLE v. BERRY ELSTER McGILVERY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Womble v. McGilvery",
  "decision_date": "1959-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 418"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2892,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "sha256": "b20dc9b91b0464080708cd2ebbda368b693cda772c263e82bfa2814d60af43d9",
    "simhash": "1:e0a207badad535d2",
    "word_count": 502
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARSELL WOMBLE v. BERRY ELSTER McGILVERY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn our opinion the plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. Hence, the ruling of the court below will be upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hackett Weinstein for plaintiff.",
      "Johnson & Bigg\u00e1 for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARSELL WOMBLE v. BERRY ELSTER McGILVERY.\n(Filed 14 January, 1959.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 411\u2014\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tending to show that plaintiff was intoxicated and was walking in a street near the edge of the .pavement, facing traffic, that defendant\u2019s car was approaching from the opposite direction on the right side of the street at a lawful speed, that .plaintiff saw the car but paid no attention to it, and that the car struck plaintiff and came to an immediate stop, together with testimony of a witness for plaintiff that plaintiff moved out into the street just before the accident is held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Williams, J., February-March Term, 1958, of Robeson.\nThis is a civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff was hit by an automobile owned and operated by the defendant on Madison Street, just outside the corporate limits of the Town of Fairmont, in Robeson County, North Carolina, on 11 December 1955, about 10:45 p.m.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence tends to show that he had been drinking that evening and had been in a fight and got cut rather seriously about an hour and a half before the accident complained of herein; that after he got cut he went into a nearby field and laid down; that he did not know how he got into the street; that he was walking near the edge of the pavement, facing traffic; that he saw the defendant\u2019s car approaching but paid no attention to it \"until it got right on me.\u201d One of the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses testified that just before the accident the plaintiff \u201cmoved out into the road.\u201d The plaintiff was going north on the street or road and the defendant\u2019s car was being driven in a southerly direction. The speed of the defendant\u2019s car was fixed by one of the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses at not more than 20 miles per hour. This witness further testified that defendant\u2019s car was being operated on its right side of the street and did not move at all after 'it came in contact with the plaintiff; that plaintiff was knocked not more than four or five feet by the car. The plaintiff testified \u201cI don\u2019t remember how much drinking I did. I drank about half a pint in all. * * * I sure don\u2019t remember much else, after drinking that half pint. * * I had moved off that street and was trying to make it home. I was going in the opposite direction from home, but I thought I was going home. I didn\u2019t know exactly where I was going.\u201d\nThe defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. The motion was allowed and the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nHackett Weinstein for plaintiff.\nJohnson & Bigg\u00e1 for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 460,
  "last_page_order": 461
}