{
  "id": 8575543,
  "name": "MRS. BERTHA SPRUEILL, Administratrix of the Estate of MAURICE SPRUEILL, JR. v. LINARD HAMLET",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sprueill v. Hamlet",
  "decision_date": "1963-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "546",
  "last_page": "547",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 546"
    }
  ],
  "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": "129 S.E. 2d 610",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0016-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2266,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.392,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2067014331723587
    },
    "sha256": "51635c7dbca2593781548d339d086a69bcc1ab9d9c07c2624f4c0b3d5d2e2081",
    "simhash": "1:2a2795736c7d04c7",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. BERTHA SPRUEILL, Administratrix of the Estate of MAURICE SPRUEILL, JR. v. LINARD HAMLET."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cuhiam.\nWe have carefully examined the evidence. We are of \u25a0the opinion and hold that, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is sufficient to permit a jury to find the facts to be a\u00ae alleged by plaintiff. If the facts be a\u00ae plaintiff alleges, defendant is liable. No useful purpose would be served by detailed analysis of the evidence. In accord with our practice, Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 129 S.E. 2d 610, discussion of the evidence is omitted.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cuhiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burns, Long & Burns by F. Kent Burns, Young, Moore & Henderson by J. C. Moore for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Haywood and Denny by Egbert L. Haywood and George W. Miller, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. BERTHA SPRUEILL, Administratrix of the Estate of MAURICE SPRUEILL, JR. v. LINARD HAMLET.\n(Filed 20 November 1963.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Brock, S.J., May 27, 1963 Civil Session of PERSON.\nPlaintiff brings this action to -recover damages resulting from tire -death of her intestate, -passenger in a -bus traveling month on Highway 57. She alleges her intestate\u2019s death was proxi-mately caused by defendant\u2019\u00ae negligence in that he o-pierated hie truck 'in a southward direction at night loaded with slab wood inadequately secured and in such manner that the width of the vehicle and load exceeded ninety-six inches, and while so- loaded defendant operated his truck without adequate lights and either to the left of .or in such close proximity to- the center of the highway that one of the pieces -of wood projecting from his -truck pierced the bus, striking and killing plaintiff\u2019s intestate when the vehicles .passed.\nDefendant .denied plaintiff\u2019s allegations -of negligence. He alleged he was -driving hi\u00ae vehicle in hi\u00ae right lane; the bus driver veered to- his left and -came into defendant\u2019\u00ae lane of travel; \u201cat that instant the left side -of the bus sideswiped the left .side -oif the -bed of -the truck . . . the force of the collision .caused one of the wooden, slabs loaded on the bed of Ibis .truck to- become dislodged .and .the same penetrated the win-doiw -on the left front and side of the bus and thereafter struck plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\u201d At-the -conclusion o-f plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant\u2019s motion for -non/suit was -allowed. Plaintiff excepted and -appealed.\nBurns, Long & Burns by F. Kent Burns, Young, Moore & Henderson by J. C. Moore for plaintiff appellant.\nHaywood and Denny by Egbert L. Haywood and George W. Miller, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0546-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 587
}