{
  "id": 8575938,
  "name": "VADA GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK; and CLYDE GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grant v. Shadrick",
  "decision_date": "1963-12-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "674",
  "last_page": "676",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 674"
    }
  ],
  "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": "18 A.L.R. 2d 1287",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1307"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 5008,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.396,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.425674638128259e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8014525171158627
    },
    "sha256": "9e4cd19b113bcf1ba6bd1f24d488d9d7faae502dd7a9370e20923935e861eba2",
    "simhash": "1:7e26bbb20af076ed",
    "word_count": 806
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VADA GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK and CLYDE GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuRiAM.\nEach plaintiff'\u00a9 allegation\u00a9 as to- defendant\u2019\u00a9 negligence include the following: (1) she failed to exercise due care to keep \u25a0a proper lookout; and (2) she \u201cswerved her automobile\u201d into- the path of the Grant Gar, \u201cdrove the same upon the left side of the highway,\u201d and \u201cfailed to yield the right of way\u201d to the Grant car.\nThere was evidence tending to \u00a9how: U. S. Highway No. 19, where the collision occurred, is approximately twenty feet wide. It is a two-lane (\u201cblacktop\u201d) highway. Grant wais proceeding north on his (right) iside of said highway a\u00a1t a speed of approximately forty miles per hour. The highway was straight. As Grant approached the point of \u25a0collision, he met a line of three cars proceeding south on their (right) side of said highway. As Grant approached, the third car, defendant\u2019s Volvo, \u201cswerved out\u201d from behind the second car, left its right side of said highway and collided with the Grant Dodge on Grant\u2019s right side of said highway.\nWhen considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motions for judgment of nonsuit and to support the verdicts.\nGrant was permitted to testify, over defendant\u2019s objection, that a State Highway Patrolman who investigated the collision charged defendant with \u201cfailing to yield right of way\u201d and that defendant, before a justice of the -peace in Andrews, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to this charge. There was no contention that defendant\u2019s plea constituted res judicata or an estoppel with reference to any matter involved therein. The testimony was offered and admitted as evidence in the nature of an admission bearing upon whether defendant operated her oar onto the left side of the highway and directly in the path of the approaching Grant car.\n\u201cEvidence of a plea of guilty to a (criminal charge arising out of an automobile accident is generally admissible, but it is not conclusive, and may be explained.\u201d Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Volume 9C, Permanent Edition, \u00a7 6196; 31 C.J.S., Evidence \u00a7 300(b); 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 944; Annotation, 18 A.L.R. 2d 1287, 1307, and supplemental- dec-is-ions.\nThe patrokuain/'s testimooy as ibo> what occurred1, if anything, before the justice -of -the peace io Andrews was subject to -contradiction- -aod explanation, the weight to be given his testimony and the matters referred- to therein being for jury -determination. Defendant did not testify or offer evidence. Defendant\u2019s1 pleading, as noted in -our preliminary statement, is to- -filie effect the collision occurred -on her left (Grant\u2019s right) -side of the -highway. Under\u2019 the -\u00a9iroumstanoes, we perceive n-o prejudicial error in the admission of the patrolman\u2019s said testimony.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morgan, Byerly, Post, Van Anda & Keziah for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Deal, Hutchins <& Minor for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VADA GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK and CLYDE GRANT v. SAVANNAH FLORA SHADRICK.\n(Filed 11 December 1963.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 43c\u2014\nEvidence tha/t defendant, traveling in (the opposite direction, .pulled out from behind the second car preceding her on the highway into plaintiff\u2019s lane of travel, held sufficient to take the issue of negligence to the jury.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 37\u2014\nEvidence (that defendant pleaded guilty to a criminal charge arising out of the same accident is ordinarily competent, and the .admission of such evidence in this case could not have prejudiced defendant in view of defendant\u2019s own theory of how the .accident occurred.\nAppeal by 'defendant from Crissman, JFebruary 18, 1963 Session of GuileoRD, High Point Division.\nTirase civil .actions, consolidated for trial, grow out of a collision that occurred July 3, 1961, about 2:00 ,p.m., on U. S. Highway No. 19, in Cherokee County, North Carolina, between a 1957 Dodge owned and operated by Clyde 'Grant (hereafter Grant) in which his wife, Vada Grant, was a passenger, and ia 1958 Volvo owned and operated by defendant. The husband's .action is to recover for personal injuries and damage to his car. The wife\u2019s action is to recover for personal injuries.\nBach plaintiff alleged the collision (and resulting damages .were proximately caused by .the negligence of defendant. Plaintiffs\u2019 crucial allegations were denied by defendant. She alleged .the car in front of her stopped suddenly and without warning; that, in the emergency so created, she applied her brakes; and that her car skidded on the wet and slick pavement \u201cto the left into the left-bound lane.\u201d Defendant did not plead contributory negligence in either case.\nThe only evidence was that offered by plaintiffs. In each action, issues as to negligence and damages were answered in favor of (the plaintiff and the court, in accordance with the verdicts, entered judgments in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Defendant excepted, appealed and assigns as error (1) ithe denial of her motion for judgment of nonsuit and (2) the admission of certain evidence.\nMorgan, Byerly, Post, Van Anda & Keziah for plaintiff appellees.\nDeal, Hutchins <& Minor for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0674-01",
  "first_page_order": 714,
  "last_page_order": 716
}