{
  "id": 8627799,
  "name": "VICTORIA ANNE STEELE, Minor, by her Next Friend, BEATRICE C. TROTTER, v. GEORGE EDISON BROWN, Original Defendant, and HERBERT RUSSELL YORK, Additional Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steele ex rel. Trotter v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1961-05-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "677",
  "last_page": "678",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 N.C. 677"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 S.E. 2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 3001,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "sha256": "6a978e20739b23782aa77418bcd323f5b7d96ed7d1066a7b5f2ba4d25a56b748",
    "simhash": "1:726a05d4324f4e96",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:35.681015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VICTORIA ANNE STEELE, Minor, by her Next Friend, BEATRICE C. TROTTER, v. GEORGE EDISON BROWN, Original Defendant, and HERBERT RUSSELL YORK, Additional Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nThe assignments of error by defendant Brown in this case are identical with his assignments of error in the Stockwell case, with the exception that here there is no assignment of error to the evidence. The briefs in both cases are the same, with the exception of a discussion in the briefs in the Stockwell case of the challenged evidence in Betty Ann Stockwell\u2019s testimony as to the need of an operation, if she wants to wear hose.\nUpon authority of the Stockwell case, ante 662, 119 S.E. 2d 795, we hold that the trial court properly overruled defendant Brown\u2019s motion for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence.\nThe other assignments of error are without merit, and are overruled.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miller & Beck By: Adam W. Beck for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Coltrane \u25a0& Gavin By: T. Worth Coltrane for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VICTORIA ANNE STEELE, Minor, by her Next Friend, BEATRICE C. TROTTER, v. GEORGE EDISON BROWN, Original Defendant, and HERBERT RUSSELL YORK, Additional Defendant.\n(Filed 10 May, 1961.)\nAppeal by original defendant George Edison Brown from Preyer, J., 28 November 1960 Term of RaNdolph.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of the original defendant George Edison Brown.\nThe plaintiff Virginia Anne Steele was riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by Betty Ann Stockwell on 17 August 1959, when the Stockwell automobile was involved in a collision with an automobile driven by defendant Brown. Plaintiff\u2019s case was consolidated and tried with the case of Betty Ann Stockwell, minor, by her next friend, George E. Stockwell, against the same defendants here, which case is reported ante 662, 119 S.E. 2d 795, and is hereby referred to for the pleadings, for the facts, and for the bringing in of the additional defendant York by the original defendant Brown. The complaint of the plaintiff here, with the exception of a description of her injuries, and the answer of the defendant Brown are identical with the pleadings in the Stockwell case, except as to the description of Betty Ann Stockwell\u2019s injuries in her complaint. The evidence is the same in both cases. Separate appeals were brought up in each case.\nSeparate issues were submitted in the instant case, which are identical with the issues submitted in the Stockwell case, and they were answered identically as the issues were answered in the Stockwell case, except that in the instant case the damages awarded were $3,750.00.\nPlaintiff at the suggestion of the court agreed to a remittitur in the verdict in the sum of $1,875.00. Whereupon, the court entered judgment that plaintiff recover from the original defendant Brown the sum of $1,875.00 with costs, and that the original defendant Brown recover from the additional defendant York the sum of $937.50 with one-half of the costs as contribution by virtue of G.S. 1-240.\nFrom the judgment the original defendant Brown appeals.\nMiller & Beck By: Adam W. Beck for plaintiff, appellee.\nColtrane \u25a0& Gavin By: T. Worth Coltrane for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0677-01",
  "first_page_order": 715,
  "last_page_order": 716
}