{
  "id": 8560088,
  "name": "SOUTHERN OIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. ASPHALT AND PETROLEUM COMPANY and ELSON BRITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Oil Transportation Co. v. Asphalt & Petroleum Co.",
  "decision_date": "1962-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "210",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 N.C. 209"
    }
  ],
  "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": 201,
    "char_count": 2781,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "sha256": "c8ea69d5d332798d451dfdad92ae80258dc87424adf3487c4a5fe1f773ceb19c",
    "simhash": "1:960f8590aebf4d2a",
    "word_count": 421
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:31.620483+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN OIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. ASPHALT AND PETROLEUM COMPANY and ELSON BRITT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only evidence was that offered by plaintiff; and this evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s finding that plaintiff\u2019s damage was proximately caused by the negligence of defendants as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, it does not appear therefrom that Freeman, plaintiff\u2019s employee-driver, was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin & Whitley for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Sapp Sapp for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN OIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. ASPHALT AND PETROLEUM COMPANY and ELSON BRITT.\n(Filed 21 November 1962.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7\u00a7 41i, 42e\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that defendant\u2019s vehicle entered the highway from a roadside park so closely in front of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle that, to avoid a rear-end collision, plaintiff\u2019s driver drove plaintiff\u2019s vehicle to the right off the highway onto 'the shoulder where it turned over, resulting in damage, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence and not to disclose contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nAppeal by defendants from Crissman, J., February 19, 1962, Civil Term of GuileoRD, High Point Division.\nPlaintiff\u2019s action is to recover compensation for damage to its tractor-trailer and for loss of cargo allegedly caused by the negligent operation of corporate defendant\u2019s tractor-trailer in the course of its business by defendant Britt, its employee-driver.\nThe facts alleged by plaintiff on which it predicates its allegations of negligence may be summarized as follows: On December 22, 1960, about 7:50 a.m., as plaintiff\u2019s tractor-trailer, operated by Allen Freeman, plaintiff\u2019s employee-driver, was proceeding north on U.S. Highway 421, approximately twelve miles south of Clinton, North Carolina, defendant Britt, operating the corporate defendant\u2019s tractor-trailer, entered upon 421 from a roadside park on the west side thereof and proceeded (north) into the lane for northbound traffic and directly in front of and in the path of plaintiff\u2019s tractor-trailer when it was so close that the driver (Freeman) had to turn out in order to avoid a rear-end collision. Confronted by this sudden emergency, Freeman drove plaintiff\u2019s tractor-trailer off said highway and onto the east shoulder thereof where it turned over, thereby damaging plaintiff\u2019s tractor-trailer and its cargo.\nIssues of negligence and contributory negligence, raised by the pleadings, were submitted and answered in favor of plaintiff; and the jury awarded damages in the amount of $3,319.59.\nJudgment for plaintiff, in accordance with the verdict, was entered. Defendants excepted and appealed; and, on appeal, defendants assign as error the court\u2019s denial of their motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nMartin & Whitley for plaintiff appellee.\nSapp Sapp for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 250
}