#### VIRGINIA SIMMS LLOYD (and MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION) v. PHILLIP GREENBERG.

(Filed 20 May, 1959.)

.Appeal hy defendant from McKinnon, J., October Term, 1958, of Dueham.

Civil action instituted by Virginia Simms Lloyd, referred to herein as plaintiff, growing out of a collision that occurred November 2, 1954, on N. C. Highway 49 near its intersection with N. C. Highway 73, approximately nine miles south of Concord, N. C., between a Cadillac oar, operated by defendant, and a Pontiac car, owned and operated by plaintiff, resulting in personal injury to plaintiff and damage to her car.

The cars were proceeding on Highway 49, in the same direction, southeast towards Charlotte, N. C. The Cadillac struck the rear of the Pontiac.

Prior to trial, Motors Insurance Corporation, plaintiff’s collision insurance carrier, was made a party because of its interest in plaintiff’s -claim for damages to her oar.

The court overruled defendant’s motions for judgment of nonsuit. *375Issues raised .by the pleadings were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the (first) negligence issue, “Yes,” and answered the (second) contributory negligence issue, “No.” Answering separate issues, the jury awarded (third issue) $10,000.00 on account of plaintiff’s personal injuries and awarded (fourth issue) $478.00 on account of the damage to her car.

It appears that plaintiff “stipulated and agreed in open court at the time of the hearing (of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict) to a reduction in the damages under the third issue to the sum of $8,000.00.”

The court entered judgment (1) that plaintiff have and recover of defendant the sum of $8,000.00 damages for personal injuries, and (2) that plaintiff have and recover of defendant $478.00 as damages to her car, with provisions defining the respective interests of plaintiff and Motors Insurance Corporation in said $478.00, and (3) that defendant pay the costs.

Defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.

James R. Farlow and Victor S. Bryant, Jr., for plaintiffs, appellees.

Daniel K. Ediuards and Robinson 0. Everett for defendant, appellant.

Per Curiam.

The conclusion reached is that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, presented a case for jury determination on the issues ‘submitted. Moreover, consideration of the assignments of error brought forward and discussed in appellant’s brief fails to disclose any error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. As to the reduction of the verdict on the third issue, with plaintiff’s consent, see Caudle v. Swanson, 248 N.C. 249, 103 S.E. 2d 357, and cases cited.

No Error.