{
  "id": 8574649,
  "name": "HERMAN L. GREENE v. CECIL HARMON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greene v. Harmon",
  "decision_date": "1963-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "345",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 344"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 S.E. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N.C. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 12",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626742
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0012-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628938
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S.E. 2d 379",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 823",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0823-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572306
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0681-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2461,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140241380868151
    },
    "sha256": "35e4fc6110a4791fa0d0e03b71794392b9a4589cc2dcebda4ff067e6cf4a093c",
    "simhash": "1:93321573c3561178",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERMAN L. GREENE v. CECIL HARMON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant assigns as error the failure of the \u25a0court below in its charge to the jury to apply -the law to. the evidence on the substantial features of the case, in that the court failed to charge the jury as to the applicable statutory law with respect to the right of way of the parties \u00a1at an intersection or as to what would constitute negligence with respect to speed where safety signs had been erected by proper officials. We think this assignment of error was well taken and must be upheld.\nAn examination of the charge reveals that the court instructed the jury with reispect to negligence according to the common law rule of the -prudent man only.\nIn Pittman v. Swanson, 255 N.C. 681, 122 S.E. 2d 814, it is said: \u201cOur decisions are as one in holding that the positive duty of the judge, as required by G.S. 1-180, to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence in the case means that he shall declare and explain the statutory law as well as the common law arising thereon. Barnes v. Teer, 219 N.C. 823, 15 S.E. 2d 379; Kolman v. Silbert, 219 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 2d 915; Spencer v. Brown, 214 N.C. 114, 198 S.E. 630; Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N.C. 12, 147 S.E. 435; Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N.C. 248, 114 S.E. 170.\u201d\nThe appellant ig entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holshouser & Holshouser for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Stacy E. Eggers, Jr. and Hayes & Hayes for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERMAN L. GREENE v. CECIL HARMON.\n(Filed 16 October 1963)\nTrial \u00a7 S3\u2014\nTbe court is required to charge the jury on the applicable statutory law \u25a0as well as the common law, and the court\u2019s failure to do so must be held for prejudicial error. G.S. 1-180.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, Emergency Judge, Regular June Civil Session 1963 of Watauga.\nThis is a civil action instituted on 8 October 1962 by the plaintiff to recover for damages to his -automobile, resulting from a collision between tire plaintiff\u2019s automobile and the Voilfcswagen of the defendant on 1 August 1962, \u00a1about 7:15 a.m., on Highway 321 near \u25a0the \u201cY\u201d intersection of old Plighway 421, near Stephens\u2019 Service Station in Watauga County, North Carolina.\nThe defendant filed a cross-action and counterclaim for personal injuries and damages to his motor vehicle which he alleges he sustained as a result of said collision.\nThe jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nHolshouser & Holshouser for plaintiff appellant.\nStacy E. Eggers, Jr. and Hayes & Hayes for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}