{ "id": 8571682, "name": "LAURA TAYLOR HONEYCUTT, by her next friend, A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants; and A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Honeycutt ex rel. Honeycutt v. Strube", "decision_date": "1964-01-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "59", "last_page": "67", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "261 N.C. 59" } ], "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": "66 S.E. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618025 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 530", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573888 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622845 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S.E. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572272 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 754", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0754-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 758", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619652 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0758-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E. 736", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N.C. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628600 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 773", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628010 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0773-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626061 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0199-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 948, "char_count": 21488, "ocr_confidence": 0.392, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.912960672357197e-07, "percentile": 0.7319529053624362 }, "sha256": "1468c47b4e580594587c7fe7e22f591ed8eddd89c54e8d177e5a4f803bbffbea", "simhash": "1:7e6d9de18ca5647b", "word_count": 3587 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LAURA TAYLOR HONEYCUTT, by her next friend, A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants. and A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nThe occupants -of the Honeycutt car were Mi\u2019s. Honey-cutt -and ia little boy (aged fifteen months) whom she wais keeping. Since the collision, as a result of the -brain injury she received, Mrs. Honeycutt ibais been ;and is now unconscious, unable in any respect to take care of herself. -She iis fed -artificially. Artificial means are required for the functioning of -her kidneys -and bowels. Constant nursing has been and is required. In the -opinion of the physician who ha\u00ae treated her -from, the day she was- injured, \u201cthe prognosis is -completely hopeless as far as ever recovering any consciousness or ever becoming aware of her -surroundings. . . . she hais complete, total disability as a result of the wounds which I saw -that she had -on the 6th day of September, 1960.\u201d\nThe foregoing explains (1) why Mrs. Honeycutt was not and could not be a witness and (2) why this action is being prosecuted in her -behalf by \u00a1a next friend. It -is noted that defendants- do not assign error in -respect of the amount of damages awarded -in either case.\nDefendants -assign -as error (1) the denial of their motions for judgments of involuntary nonsu-it, (2) the admission -of certain testimony as to the speed of the Strube car, and (3) -the failure of the -court to ap-p-ly the law to the facts in -the instructions given the jury with reference to the contributory negligence issue.\nNo -person Who saw the collision testified. The evidence indicates there -was no eye witness other than the -occupants o\u00ed the two oars.\nThere was evidence -tending to show the foil-owing:\nThe Reverend Howard Taylor lives 'on the Roberta Mill Ro-ad approximately -one -mile south -o-f the Meadow Branch bridge. On September 6, 1960, about 11:00 a.m., the Strube -ciar, -a 1956 dark blue Fo-rd, headed toward Conoo-rd, -appro-ached -and -pa-s-s-ed the Taylor home, attracting -attention -by the noise of its \u201cloud mufflers.\u201d\nMrs. Nancy Easley lives on the Roberta Mill Ro-ad, \u201capproximately mid-dleway-s\u201d -between the home o\u00ed the Reverend Howard Taylor and the Meadow Branch bridge. Mrs. Easley\u2019s testimony includes a statement .th-at she lived \u201ca -little under a quarter o\u00ed -a mile fro-m the Meadow Branch bridge.\u201d Appro-aching the bridge from the south, Mrs. Easley\u2019s home is -on the left -side o-f the ro-ad. Her -attention wa-s attracted by the -roar of the motor of \u201ca \u201955 -or \u201956 model dark blue Ford\u201d which, in her opinion, approached and passed her house at a speed -of \u201c(a)round eighty miles an- hour.\u201d Mrs. Easley testified it p-a-ssed her house \u201capproximately between quarter to- eleven and eleven o\u2019clock\u201d on the morning -o-f September 6, 1960. No other ear with -a 1-o-ud muffler p-a-ssed her home that morning.\nMis. Rachel Orisco- lives -on th-e Roberta Mill Ro-ad \u201ca-t least 300 feet\u201d -south of Meadow Branch bridge, \u201c-on -the -left going towards Concord.\u201d A \u201cfew -seconds\u201d before the collision, -a -ear, headed toward Concord, \u201cwhizzed-by\u201d Mrs. Grisco-\u2019s home, -attracting her attention by the loud -and unusual \u201cnoise\u201d and \u201cracket\u201d it was making. \u201cRight after\u201d the car passed, Mrs. Crisco -heard \u201cthe c-raislh.\u201d She testified: \u201cIt sounded -like it was just tearing it -all to pieces.\u201d M-ns. Crisco- went to the ro-ad. From there -she saw \u201cth-e fo-aby\u201d -standing \u201con the edge of the bridge.\u201d She did not go to the scene -of -the -collision until after -an ambulance had taken Mrs. Honeycutt -to the hospital.\nMr. -and Mrs. William Taylor saw -and identified the Strube oar while standing in the front yard o-f -the Reverend Howard Taylor. They had stopped while -on their way fro-m Roberta to Concord and were -getting into their -oar when the Strube -ear p-assad. Resuming their trip, -they -arrived at th-e -scene of -co-llision \u201ca-bout two minutes\u201d after the Strube ear had passed th-e Taylor ho-me. Meanwhile, the collision bad -occurred. Upon arrival at th-e scene, -one Jerry Go-chrane \u201cwas -picking -up the baby -about middle way of the bridge.\u201d Jerry Go-chrane handed \u25a0the b-aby to Mrs. Taylor.\nIn addition -to the foregoing, evidence (set forth below) descriptive of -the -contour of the highway south -o-f th-e Meadow Branch bridge and -o-f the eon-sequences of the impact -bears upon whether the Strube car was being operated at excessive and unlawful speed.\nIt iseems appropriate now to consider defendants\u2019 assignment of \u25a0error based on their exception to the admission over itheir objection \u00a1of the opinion evidence of Mrs. Easley as to the speed of the \u201c \u201955 or \u201956 model dark blue Ford,\u201d with loud mufflers, that passed her home headed toward Concord about 11:00 a.m. on September 6, 1960.\nDefendants contend \u00a1the opinion testimony of Mrs. Easley was inadmissible on 'account of \u201cremoteness, lack of observation, failure of identity, \u00a1and lack of foundation.\u201d\n\u201cIt is a general rule of law, adopted in- this State, that .any person of ordinary intelligence, who has had an opportunity -for observation, is competent to testify .as to the rate .of speed of .a \u00a1moving object, such as \u25a0an automobile.\u201d Lookabill v. Regan, 247 N.C. 199, 201, 100 S.E. 2d 521, and cases cited; Hicks v. Love, 201 N.C. 773, 161 S.E. 394.\nThere was plenary evidence that the dark blue Ford (\u201955 or \u201956), .the subject of Mrs. Easley\u2019s testimony, was the Strube car. There was ample foundation for her opinion in. that, her .attention having \u00a1been, attracted by the roar of the motor, she observed the Strube car as it approached, a,s \u00a1it passed and as it moved on toward the Cris#\u00bb home and the Meadow Branch bridge. A\u00ae to remoteness, we think the evidence .affords a sufficient basis for a finding that there was no appreciable interval between the time the Struibe car passed from Mi\u2019s. Eas-ley\u2019s vision until the collision. The .approach of the Strube oar attracted the attention of Mrs. Crdisieo \u00a1in the same manner it had attracted Mrs. Easley\u2019s .attention and \u201c(r)ight after\u201d it passed Mrs. Qrisco\u2019s home \u00a1the crash was heard. Too., when, the Taylors \u00a1arrived at the scene of \u00a1collision, \u201cabout two minutes\u201d after they .saw the Strube car pass the home of the Reverend Howard Taylor, \u00a1sufficient time \u00a1had elapsed for Jerry Cochrane to. get to the .bridge and \u00a1pick up the baby.\nIn. our view, the opinion testimony of Mrs. Easley was not inadmissible on account of remoteness or otherwise. Defendants\u2019 contentions bear on the weight rather than, the competency of this testimony. Decisions supporting the view that Mrs. Easley\u2019s opinion testimony was not inadmissible on .the ground of .remoteness include the following: S. v. Leonard, 195 N.C. 242, 251, 141 S.E. 736; S. v. Peterson, 212 N.C. 758, 194 S.E. 498; Wilson v. Camp, 249 N.C. 754, 107 S.E. 2d 743; Adkins v. Dills, 260 N.C. 206, 132 S.E. 2d 324. The only case -cited by defendants is Corum v. Comer, 256 N.C. 252, 123 S.E. 2d 473. Suffice to say, the law as .stated therein is in accord with present decision but the facts are quite different.\nAll testimony concerning the Honeycutt car relate\u00a9 to physical facts \u00a1observed after the collision. Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations that the Honey-cutt car wais brought \u201cto- a stop, or substantially to \u00a1a stop,\u201d prior to collision, wais denied by defendants. There is no evidence, unless inferences from physical faicls, bearing upon whether the Honeycutt oar was stopped or in motion when the collision occurred.\nThere was testimony tending .to show the following:\nIn -approaching Meadow Branch bridge from Concord, there is \u201ca slight curve\u201d and then \u201cfor several hundred -feet\u201d .the road is straight.\nIn approaching the bridge from Roberta, there is \u201ca pretty sharp curve\u201d to the right. Before you get .to .this curve, a sign gives warning that you .are approaching a one-way bridge. From the apex of this curve to 'the .bridge, the road is straight for 250 feet. You .can see the bridge \u201capproximately 250 to 300 feet before you get .to it.\u201d Generally, from Roberta to the bridge \u201cthe road is up and down right smart, right smart umlevel.\u201d\nThe road was dry. The weather was clear. The maximum speed limit was 55 miles per hour. The width of the .paved 'portion, of the road was sixteen feet and -ten inches. The width of the bridge was seventeen feet. The center\u2019 of the road wais not marked \u201cright at the bridge.\u201d The pavement \u201chad bean put down in .two. sections\u201d and you could \u201cpretty generally tell from looking at the pavement where the center -was\u201d\u2014 \u201c.the breaking point was about tire center of the road.\u201d There was no evidence as to the length of the bridge.\nWith reference to conditions existing at the scene after the collision, there was. evidence tending to- .show the following:\nBoth cars were north (on \u00a1the Concord side) of the bridge. The patrolman testified \u201c(t)he skid marks .and debris were approximately 15 feet from the -end of the bridge.\u201d The Honeycutt ear was on the right side of .the road going toward Roberta. The front wheels were near or \u201cjust off\u201d \u00a1the edge of the pavement. The rear of the Honeycutt car \u201cwas near the center of the road.\u201d According to one witness, the Honey-cutt car \u201cwas facing the woods.\u201d Another testified the Honeycutt car was \u201cpointed towards the banister of the bridge.\u201d One witness testified the Honeycutt -car was \u201cabout two foot from the comer of the bridge.\u201d\nThe right door o-f the Flomeycutt (two-door) car was open. The left door was closed. The baby was on the bridge. Mrs. Honeycutt was on \u25a0the left iside of -the -road going -toward Roberta. She was \u201claying across a barbed wire fence\u201d with her head \u201cagainst that post in the grass,\u201d near the \u00a1northeast corner of the bridge, .approximately 21 feet from the Honeycutt car. The motor -from the Honeycutt ear, which weighed 200-300 -pounds, and the battery (\u201cbusted all to pieces\u201d) were to the right of the road going toward Roberta, down the bank -and near the branch, some 25-45 feet from the Honeycutt car.\nThe Strobe oar was headed at 'am .angle into a ditch \u00a1and bank \u201coff to the right hand side of the road\u201d going toward Concord. The rear of it wais toward the road. It was 160 feet or more north of the Honeycutt ear. A witness testified he went to the Strobe oar and that Jerry Strobe, the only person he saw there, told him \u201c'he couldn't lift his leg.\u201d\nThe Honeycutt oar blocked the right side of .the road .going toward Roberta. The greater part of the debris was on that side of the road. The right side going toward Concord was not 'blocked. Traffic could move on the paved portion thereof.\nTire front .portions of both cars were damaged. The more extensive damage was to the right front of the Honeycutt ear and to the left front of the \u00a1Strobe ear. Apparently, the Strobe ear struck the Honey-cutt ear -with isueh force .as to cause it to spin around \u2018and make nearly a .complete .circle. There was much evidence .concerning 'the circular shape of certain lateral tire or skid marks. There wais evidence a portion of \u00a1such marks extended a short distance to. -the left of the center of the road going toward Roberta. As described by the investigating patrolman, \u201cthe circular \u00a1skid marks\u201d were \u201cin a counter-clockwise motion as you are looking towards the bridge from .the Concord side. . . . Ais to the \u00a1center of the highway, the skid marks ranged from the right side of the road over . . . just a little bit across the center . . . of the mad and back.\u201d\nFurther statement of the evidence is unnecessary. It is noted that neither Jerry Strobe nor Jerry Cochrane testified. The evidence does not disclose how and when Jerry Cochrane arrived at the scene of collision.\nWhen considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was sufficient to \u00a1support findings that Jerry Strobe, when approaching Meadow Branch bridge, was operating the Strube car at excessive and1 unlawful speed; that notwithstanding he saw or by the exercise of \u00a1due care should have \u00a1seen the Honeycutt car in motion or standing still on the month side of the bridge he did not bring the Strobe car under control 'but continued across the bridge at such speed -until the moment of collision; and that such negligence of Jerry Strulbe was a proximate \u00a1cause of the collision and resulting injuries and damage. Hence, defendants\u2019 motions for judgment of nonsuit were properly denied.\nEven so, defendants contend a new trial should -be awarded for error in the charge in respect of the contributory negligence issue.\nThe 'burden was on defendants to prove their allegations in respect of contributory negligence. No person testified who- observed (or should have observed) the Honeycutt car prior to the collision. There is no evidence as to Mus. Honeycutt\u2019s alleged failure to keep a proper lookout or (her alleged failure to keep her ear under proper control. Tthe question is whether there is evidence that she operated her car on her left half of the highway in violation of G.S. 20-146 (b) and G.S. 20-148 and whether .such negligence wais a proximate cause of the collision.\nThere is no evidence a\u00ae to the positions of the cars as they approached the scene of collision. Was the Strobe car in the act of turning from its left to its right side of the highway when the collision occurred? There is no evidence this occurred. On the other 'hand, the evidence is not inconsistent with such occurrence.\nPlaintiffs attempt to draw conclusions from physical facts observable after the collision as to the positions of the cars at the moment of collision. While there is evidence as to physical facts consistent with theories favorable to plaintiffs and other theories favorable to defendants as to the positions of the cars at the moment of collision, where the cars were as they approached the scene of collision and when the collision occurred remains the subject of theory, conjecture and surmise.\nUnder well settled legal principles stated in Boyd v. Harper, 250 N.C. 334, 339, 108 S.E. 2d 598, and in eases cited therein, the evidence was insufficient to justify the submission of the contributory negligence issue. In this connection, see Parker v. Flythe, 256 N.C. 548, 124 S.E. 2d 530. Hence, error, if any, in respect of the court\u2019s instructions bearing upon the contributory negligence issue is harmless. Bruce v. Flying Service, 234 N.C. 79, 66 S.E. 2d 312.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Craighill, Rendleman & Clarkson; Iiartsell, Hartsell & Mills and John R. Ingle for plaintiff appellees.", "Williams, Willeford & Roger for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LAURA TAYLOR HONEYCUTT, by her next friend, A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants. and A. A. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff v. JERRY WAYNE STRUBE and RALPH NEIL STRUBE, Defendants.\n(Filed 17 January 1964.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 38\u2014\nEvidence -disclosing -that tbe \u25a0aittemitio-n of Hue witness was attracted to a ear with, a loud muffler1 which passed her home -a quarter -of a mile from the scene of the collision, that no other car with ia loud muffler passed her home that morning, and that -the collision occurred shortly thereafter, with evidence tending to -identify the car she saw with th-alt driven by defen-darnt, is held .to render competent lier testimony from her observation of \u2022the oar as to its speed.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 41b\u2014 Evidence of excessive speed constituting proximate cause of injury held sufficient to take the issue to the jury.\nThe accident in suit occurred immediately north of a one-way bridge on a two-lane highway, between, a oar driven south by plaintiff! and a oar driven north by defendant. Opinion testimony as to the speed of defendant\u2019s car immediately prior to the collision together with testimony as to the physical facts at the scene immadiia|fcely after the collision, held sufficient to show that defendant ,was operating his car at an excessive and -unlawful speed and (that notwithstanding he saw, or by the exercise iof due care should have seen, plaintiff\u2019s oar in morion or standing on the north side of the bridge, defendant did not bring his car under control but continued across -the bridge at such unlawful speed until the moment of collision, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision.\n3. Negligence \u00a7 21\u2014\n(The burden is upon defendant to prove contributory negligence.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 44\u2014\nWhere the physical facts at the scene of the .collision permit inferences that immediately before the impact plaintiff\u2019s car was on its right side of \u2022the highway and also that it was to (the left -of itsi center of the highway, there being mo eyewitness to the collision!, the position of plaintiff\u2019s car immediately -prior to the collision rest-s in mere surmise, and -the evidence is insufficient to ibe submitted |bo the jury on the contention that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to keep her car on the right side of the highway, and therefore any error in the court\u2019s instruction upon the issue of contributory negligence is- harmless upon defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAppeal by defendants from Olive, Emergency Judge, February 1963 Civil Session of CabaRRus.\nThese -civil actions, -consolidated for trial, -grow out of a collision that occurred September 6, 1960, about 11:00 a.m., between a 1950 Chevrolet (Honeycutt car) and a. 1956 Ford (Strube oar). The Honey-cutt car .wais owned .by A. A. Honeycutt 'and was \u00a1being operated by hie wife, Laura Taylor Honeycutt. The Strube car was- owned by Ralph (Neil) Strube and was being operated by his minor son, Jerry (Wayne) Sitruibe.\nThe pleadings establish the following facts: The collision occurred in Cabarrus County, North Carolina, on -a paved tw-O'-lane 'highway known as Roberta Mill Road, which extends between the Roberta Mill community (Roberta) and Concord. This highway, -at the place where the 'Collision -occurred, -runs generally north-south. The Honeycutt ear w-as proceeding in \u00a1a southerly -direction approaching (from the direction of Concord) the bridge (approximately sixteen feet wide) across Meadow Branch. The Strobe ear, proceeding in a (northerly direction toward Concord, 'crossed the Meadow Bramah bridge and collided with the Honeycutt car at a point north of the bridge. At each end of the bridge, and some .distance therefrom, the State of North Carolina had erected a sign bearing the legend, \u201cOne Lane Bridge\u201d; and one of these signs was visible to drivers .approaching the bridge from each direction. In .approaching the bridge from, the south, \u201cthere is .a curve to the right and then a downgrade f or several hundred feet . . . before reaching the bridge.\u201d\nMrs. Honeycutt\u2019s (action is to recover damages for serious and permanent injuries she .sustained \u00a1as a result of said collision. Her husband\u2019s action is .to recover (1) damages for alleged destruction of the Honeycutt car and (2) for amounts he paid or is obligated to .pay for expenses (hospital, medical, nursing, drugs, special equipment) necessarily incurred by him in connection with the care and treatment of his wife.\nThe complaints contain identical allegations as to the .alleged actionable negligence of defendants. Each plaintiff alleged the collision and resulting 'injuries and damages w'are proximately caused .by the negligence o,f defendants in that Jerry Strobe, in approaching and crossing the 'bridge and in colliding with the Honeycutt car, operated the Strobe car (1) at excessive and .unlawful speed; (2) failed to keep a proper lookout; (3) failed to keep his car under proper control; (4) failed to 'drive on his right half of the highway; and (5) in general, under existing conditions, operated his car in a reckless and heedless manner.\nIn each action, Jerry Strobe, by his guardian ad litem, Ralph Strobe, and Ralph Strobe, individually, filed joint answers. They denied all allegations as to the alleged actionable negligence of Jerry Strobe. Conditionally, they .pleaded contributory negligence, alleging as .a basis for such plea that the .collision was proximately caused by the negligence of Mrs. Honeycutt in that (1) she failed to- drive her oar on her right half of the highway, (2) failed to keep a proper lookout and (3) failed to keep her car under proper control.\nCounterclaims 'alleged by defendants are not now -involved. A settlement thereof was made, without the consent or approval of plaintiffs, by and between plaintiff\u2019s liability insurance carrier and defendants \u201cwithout prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs to proceed with the prosecution of their respective causes of action against the defendants to final .adjudication.\u201d\nThe cases came on for trial on issues relating .solely to plaintiffs\u2019 causes of action.\nR was 'admitted that Ralph Strube is liable for damages caused by the 'aicti-ooafo'le negligence, if any, oif Jerry Strube.\nThe \u00a1only evidence was that offered by plaintiffs. Pertinent portions thereof will be set forth in the opinion.\nThe issues submitted and the jury\u2019s answers are as follows: \u201c1. Was the plaintiff, Laura Taylor Honeycutt, injured by the negligence of the defendants as alleged in the complaint? ANSWER: Yes. 2. If so, did the plaintiff by her own negligence contribute to- her injuries -as alleged in the answer? ANSWER: No. 3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff, Laur-a Taylor Honeycutt, entitled to recover of the defendants on account of said injuries? ANSWER: $25,000.00. 4. What aanoumit, if any, is the plain-tiff, A. A. Honeycutt, entitled -to- recover of the defendants a. For property damage? ANSWER: $250.00. b. For medical expenses? ANSWER: $9,000.00.\u201d\nA (consolidated) judgment for plaintiffs-, in-accord with the verdict, was entered: Defendants excepted and appealed.\nCraighill, Rendleman & Clarkson; Iiartsell, Hartsell & Mills and John R. Ingle for plaintiff appellees.\nWilliams, Willeford & Roger for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0059-01", "first_page_order": 99, "last_page_order": 107 }