{
  "id": 8619127,
  "name": "GLENN CARR, by his next friend, HUEY FRANK CARR v. LEXTON O'NEIL STEWART and LESSIE HONEYCUTT STEWART",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carr ex rel. Carr v. Stewart",
  "decision_date": "1960-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "121",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 118"
    }
  ],
  "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": "27 S.E. 2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614690
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0626-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614925
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 380",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621734
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625256
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 65",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619794
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 532",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598827
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 429,
    "char_count": 7737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.510027670844124e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6672896759618032
    },
    "sha256": "d7354787fb48ff0b5137bacbdc0641bde52a1f95a5e3ace7ee07ecbc203113f0",
    "simhash": "1:a624122ca36ce112",
    "word_count": 1310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:54.749131+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GLENN CARR, by his next friend, HUEY FRANK CARR v. LEXTON O\u2019NEIL STEWART and LESSIE HONEYCUTT STEWART."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Denny, J.\nIn our opinion, the plaintiff\u2019s testimony when con-sidere! in the light most favorable to him is sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The issues of negligence and contributory negligence raised by the pleadings present questions to be resolved by a jury and not by the court.\nIn the case of S. v. Hill, 238 N.C. 61, 62 S.E. 2d 532, Ervin, J., speaking for the Court, said: \u201cWhen the driver of a motor vehicle on the left comes to an intersection and finds no one approaching it on the other street within such distance as reasonably to indicate danger of collision, he is under no obligation to stop or wait, but may proceed to use such intersection as a matter of right. * * *\n\u201cA driver having the right of way may act upon the assumption in the absence of notice to the contrary that the other motorist will recognize his right of way and grant him a free passage over the intersection. * *\u201d\nG.S. 20-155, in pertinent part, reads as follows: \u201c(a) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection and/or junction at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right * * *. (b) The driver of a vehicle approaching but not having entered an intersection and/or junction, shall yield -the right of way to a vehicle already within such intersection and/or junction whether the vehicle in the junction is proceeding straight ahead or turning in either direction * * Under subsection (b) of the statute the vehicle first reaching an intersection which has no stop sign or traffic signal has the right of way over a vehicle subsequently reaching it, whether the vehicle in the intersection is proceeding straight ahead or turning in either direction; and it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle not having entered the intersection to delay his progress and allow the vehicle which first entered the intersection to pass in safety. Downs v. Odom, 250 N.C. 81, 108 S.E. 2d 65; Donlop v. Snyder, 234 N.C. 627, 68 S.E. 2d 316; Kennedy v. Smith, 226 N.C. 514, 39 S.E. 2d 380; Crone v. Fisher, 223 N.C. 635, 27 S.E. 2d 642; Yellow Cab Co. v. Sanders, 223 N.C. 626, 27 S.E. 2d 631.\nIn the case of Donlop v. Snyder, supra, the Court said: \u201cHere, the defendant\u2019s argument seems to be grounded on the assumption that this evidence conclusively shows the two cars approached the intersection at approximately the same time. Such does not appear. The evidence does not give the defendant\u2019s car any fixed location. The plaintiff said he looked and did not see the defendant\u2019s car. It is simply negative evidence. While this testimony may support the inference that the two cars approached the intersection 'at approximately the same time,\u2019 with equal logic it supports the inference that the defendant\u2019s car was at a point relatively remote from the intersection when the plaintiff looked. He said he could see up the street about a block.' .That the defendant was some considerable distance up the street when the plaintiff said he stopped and looked is supported by the physical evidence at the scene of the wreck tending to show that the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed; whereas the plaintiff said he moved through the intersection in second gear and was hit as he was emerging on the far side.\u201d\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence in the instant case tends to show that he entered the intersection first. Hence, in our opinion, he is entitled to have his case heard by a jury on appropriate issues, and we so hold.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Denny, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chesnutt & Chambliss for plaintiff.",
      "Butler, Butler & Lee for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GLENN CARR, by his next friend, HUEY FRANK CARR v. LEXTON O\u2019NEIL STEWART and LESSIE HONEYCUTT STEWART.\n(Filed 2 March, 1960.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 17\u2014\nA vehicle first reaching an intersection which has no stop sign or traffic control signal in operation has the right of way over a vehicle 'subsequently reaching the intersection, regardless of whether the first vehicle is going straight through the intersection or turning thereat. G.S. 20-155 (b).\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 -llg\u2014\nPlaintiff\u2019s testimony to the effect that, in approaching an intersection, he looked both ways, saw no traffic approaching, and entered the intersection at 10 miles per hour, and that after his front wheels had cleared the intersection, defendant\u2019s vehicle, approaching the intersection from plaintiff\u2019s right, struck plaintiff\u2019s vehicle with such force as to render it \u201ca total loss,\u201d together with testimony of a witness that plaintiff\u2019s car entered the intersection first, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence, and not to justify non-suit as a matter of law for contributory negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stevens, J., September Civil Term, 1959, of Sampson.\nThis is an action instituted 'by the plaintiff, by his next friend, to recover for personal injuries and property damages sustained in a collision between his 1950 Chevrolet automobile and an automobile owned by Lessie Honeycutt Stewart andi operated at the time with his permission by his son, Lexton O\u2019Neil Stewart, allegedly in an unlawful and negligent manner. The collision occurred oh 10 September 1958 at approximately 1:00 o\u2019clock p.m. at the intersection of Faison and McKoy Streets in the City of Clinton. The plaintiff was driving his car in an easterly direction along Faison Street. The legal speed limit on Faison Street was 35 miles per hour, and on Mc-Koy Street 20 miles per hour, it being a business street and also Highway No. 421.\nThe evidence of the plaintiff tends to show that as he approached the intersection of Faison and McKoy Streets, he. reduced the speed of his automobile to about 10 miles per hour, and immediately prior to crossing the intersection he looked! in both directions and seeing no one approaching from either direction, started across the intersection. The signal or traffic control light ait this intersection was not functioning at the time of the collision. There was no stop sign or signal at the intersection except the nonfunctioning traffic control signal.\nThe plaintiff testified, \u201cI saw no traffic approaching from either way when I got to the curb line. I never did see the car driven by the defendant before it struck me. * * * To the best of my recollection, I know I got my two front wheels across the other side of the curb, that -being the other side of the street, the eastern side, where the sidewalk was running, and I know I got my two front wheels at the sidewalk.\u201d\nOn cross-examination this witness testified, \u201cI looked out to see if I could get across and I did/n\u2019t see anybody coming and I looked good.\u201d On redirect examination the plaintiff testified, \u201cI was in the intersection before the other boy was.\u201d\nThe investigating officer testified, \u201cThe front wheels of the Glenn Carr vehicle were through the intersection and it had been struck about center-ways by the automobile driven by Stewart.\u201d This officer further testified that both streets were 24 feet wide and that the plaintiff\u2019s car was damaged to such an extent \u201cit was determined- to be a total loss.\u201d\nMrs. Frances O\u2019Neil, an eyewitness to the accident, testified for the plaintiff as follows: \" * * * the car (plaintiff\u2019s car) was coming up from here and he just about got through the intersection when this car (defendant\u2019s car) hit him. * * * I would say that he was practically all the way through the intersection when he was struck by the other car, and that the plaintiff\u2019s car entered the intersection first.\u201d\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed and judgment entered accordingly. The plaintiff appeals, assigning error. . ..\nChesnutt & Chambliss for plaintiff.\nButler, Butler & Lee for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 161
}