{
  "id": 8571383,
  "name": "AGNES G. FISHEL v. DONALD E. CARPENTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fishel v. Carpenter",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "576",
  "last_page": "577",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 N.C. 576"
    }
  ],
  "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": 178,
    "char_count": 2325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "477a4904d2ecf13fe778972570ea7551937588dd0932d0c95d441ca26475e9ff",
    "simhash": "1:2330d9ff0a844df7",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:58.690444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AGNES G. FISHEL v. DONALD E. CARPENTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to submit an issue of plaintiff\u2019s negligence both as a bar to plaintiff\u2019s recovery and as a basis for defendant\u2019s counterclaim. The evidence, however, was insufficient to permit a reasonable inference of plaintiff\u2019s negligence. The assignment of error is not sustained. Reason does not appear why the judgment should be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hoyle C. Ripple; Deal, Hutchins and Minor, By: Roy L. Deal, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton & Stockton, By: R. M. Stockton, Jr., Norwood Robinson, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AGNES G. FISHEL v. DONALD E. CARPENTER.\n(Filed 1 November, 1961.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7\u00a7 41i, 44\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that defendant attempted to enter heavy-traffic on a street from a filling station and collided with plaintiff\u2019s vehicle, which was traveling in its proper lane, is held insufficient to warrant the submission of an issue of plaintiff\u2019s negligence, either on the question of contributory negligence or on the question of negligence upon defendant\u2019s counterclaim.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., March 20, 1961, Term, Eoesyth Superior Court.\nThis civil action grew out of a collision between the plaintiff\u2019s 1954 Chevrolet and the defendant\u2019s 1958 Ford, just north of the intersection between South Main Street and Clemmonsville Road in Winston-Salem. South Main is a three-lane street, two for south-bound and one for north-bound traffic. The accident occurred about 4:30 p.m. on June 5, 1961. The traffic was heavy. The plaintiff, driving south in the middle lane of Main Street, intended to make a left turn and enter Clemmonsville Road. The defendant attempted to enter the stream of traffic from a filling station located on the west side of South Main Street. The evidence indicates the collision occurred in the plaintiff\u2019s lane of traffic.\nThe defendant tendered an issue of plaintiff\u2019s negligence, both as a bar to- her right of recovery and as a basis for his counterclaim. However, all the evidence indicated the defendant attempted to break into the heavy stream of traffic within the block and that the plaintiff was in her proper traffic lane. The jury answered the issues of negligence and damages in favor of the plaintiff. From a judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nHoyle C. Ripple; Deal, Hutchins and Minor, By: Roy L. Deal, for plaintiff, appellee.\nHudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton & Stockton, By: R. M. Stockton, Jr., Norwood Robinson, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0576-01",
  "first_page_order": 614,
  "last_page_order": 615
}