{
  "id": 8574283,
  "name": "ROBERT H. FREEMAN v. BIGGERS BROTHERS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Freeman v. Biggers Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1963-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 300"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 S.E. 2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571044
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 64",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 5202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3503244502674704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6333865410686106
    },
    "sha256": "918c20660de063b4c6280e66464c1946006787bb40348b2fe06a4645c4eff7f6",
    "simhash": "1:2dcb88c7e34b862b",
    "word_count": 845
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT H. FREEMAN v. BIGGERS BROTHERS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nIt was alleged and admitted that \u201cthe parking lot of Sfamey\u2019s Drive-In Restaurant is located at the corner of North Tryon Street .and West 12th Street, and that there are entrances to said lot on West 12th Street, and on North Tryon Street.\u201d According to his allegations and testimony, plaintiff was on this lot walking toward a parked oar when struck by a truck that entered the parking lot from 12th Street and, shortly after striking plaintiff, left the parking lot by way of the Tryon Street entrance.\nAssuming plaintiff\u2019s evidence was 'sufficient for submission to the jury as to the alleged actionable negligence of the driver of the track, the judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed on the ground plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient for submission to the jury as to the alleged ownership of the track or as to the alleged agency of the driver.\nIt was alleged and admitted that defendant is a North Carolina corporation with principal office in Charlotte, N. C. Included in paragraph 3 of the complaint i,s an allegation that \u201cthe said truck was registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of North Carolina, and that the registered owner of said track was the defendant, BIGGERS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED.\u201d The allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint are denied by defendant. The allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint (also denied by defendant) refer to the driver of the truck as \u201cdefendant\u2019s agent, servant and employee\u201d but do not otherwise purport to identify the driver.\nThere was no evidence defendant, Biggers Brothers, Incorporated, was \u201cthe registered owner of said track.\u201d The only evidence as to the identity of the driver was plaintiff\u2019s testimony that the truck \u201cwas being driven by a colored man.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s testimony descriptive of the truck, relied on by plaintiff as proof that defendant was the owner, was as follows: The truck \u201cwas painted a dark green color, had a canvas top, and was approximately a one-ton or a one and one-half ton capacity size.\u201d On the left door of the track, \u201cthere was a \u2018kinda rectangle\u2019 sign which read \u2018Biggers Brothers Wholesale Fruit & Produce\u2019 \u201d and on the right door of the truck there was a sign \u201creading \u2018Biggers Brothers Wholesale Fruit & Produce.\u2019 \u201d\nIn Knight v. Associated Transport, 255 N.C. 462, 122 S.E. 2d 64, Denny, J. (now C.J.), said: \u201c. . . we have come to the conclusion that where common carriers of freight are operating tractor-trailer units, on public highways, and such equipment bears the insignia or name of such carrier, and the motor vehicle is involved in a collision or inflicts injury upon another, evidence that the name of the defendant was painted or inscribed on the motor vehicle which inflicted the injury constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant whose name or identifying insignia appears thereon was the owner of such vehicle and that the driver thereof was operating it for and on behalf of the defendant.\u201d See also Knight v. Associated Transport, 257 N.C. 758, 127 S.E. 2d 536.\nWhether the quoted rule applies only to \u201c'common carriers of freight . . . operating tractor-trailer units, on public highways,\u201d is not presented. Plere, the name \u201cBiggers Brothers Wholesale Fruit & Produce\u201d is not the name of defendant. Nor is there evidence tending to identify the signs on the particular truck with defendant or with other trucks owned iby defendant or operated by defendant in the course of its business. Indeed, there is no evidence as to the nature of defendant\u2019s business.\nAbsent evidence .that defendant was the owner of the truck, plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of G.S. 20-71.1.\nIf plaintiff should obtain evidence sufficient to .show defendant was the owner of the truck that 'Struck plaintiff on July 2, 1962, present decision will not bar a new action.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy W. Blue and Stewart & Cohan for plaintiff appellant.,",
      "Pierce, Wardlow, Knox & Caudle for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT H. FREEMAN v. BIGGERS BROTHERS, INC.\n(Filed 9 October 1963.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 54f\u2014\nEvidence of the color and size of the truck which struck plaintiff and that it had on its doors signs reading \u201cBiggers Brothers Wholesale Fruit & Produce\u201d, without evidence tending to identify the signs on the truck with defendant or with other trucks owned by defendant, or any evidence of the nature of defendant\u2019s business, is held insufficient to show that defendant, \u201cBiggers Brothers, Inc.,\u201d was the owner of the truck.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Latham, Special Judge, June 3, 1963, Special \u201cB\u201d Session of Mecklenbukg.\nPlaintiff alleged he was injured July 2, 1962, about 1:30 p.m., in Charlotte, N. C., as the result of the negligent operation of a truck owned by defendant and operated by defendant\u2019s driver within the scope of his employment. Answering, defendant denied all essential allegations of the complaint and conditionally pleaded plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence in bar of his right to recover. The only evidence, except medical testimony .as to plaintiff\u2019s injuries, was the testimony of plaintiff. At the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the court, allowing defendant\u2019s motion therefor, entered judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nLacy W. Blue and Stewart & Cohan for plaintiff appellant.,\nPierce, Wardlow, Knox & Caudle for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 342
}