{
  "id": 8572621,
  "name": "MRS. FRANK L. HALTIWANGER v. CHARLOTTE AMUSEMENT COMPANY T/A CAROLINA THEATRE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haltiwanger v. Charlotte Amusement Co.",
  "decision_date": "1964-01-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "180",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 180"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 1776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "96094d6d8120756e63d063c4715788f433eac044d65ee87a6fe6cda8bb06bff2",
    "simhash": "1:c3aba6a7266c957c",
    "word_count": 284
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. FRANK L. HALTIWANGER v. CHARLOTTE AMUSEMENT COMPANY T/A CAROLINA THEATRE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiff\u2019s sole assignment of error brought forward and set out in her -brief is the -failure of the court to- -comply with the provisions of G.S. 1-180. The'facts -are not -complicated. We have examined the charge in its entirety and sufficient prejudicial error has not (been made to appear therein to justify a new trial.\nThe verdict and judgment below will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barnes & Olive by W. Faison Barnes for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston by E. Osborne Ayscue, Jr.., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. FRANK L. HALTIWANGER v. CHARLOTTE AMUSEMENT COMPANY T/A CAROLINA THEATRE.\n(Filed 17 January 1964.)\nAppeal -by plaintiff .from MacRae, S. J., 15 April 1963 Civil \u201cB\u201d Session of Mecklenburg.\nC-ivil action 'by plaintiff, a paying patron of defendant\u2019s theatre, to \u25a0recover damages -f-or -personal injuries sustained by her when she fell in -descending -a \u00a1stairway from the second floor of the theatre where the rest room. was. She -alleges that -her fall and injuries' were proxinuately caused by defendant\u2019s negligence in having the stairway inadequately lighted, in removing the carpet from the steps, and leaving \u00a1a raised wooden strip on the front edge of each step, and in maintaining a \u00a1fragile, -inadequate, and unstable railing along the -outer edge of the stains.\nEach party offered evidence in support of the allegations in her or its pleading.\nThe trial court submitted to- .the jury the customary issues in such cases -oif negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. The jury answered the first issue, as to- whether plaintiff was injured by the -negligence of defendant as -alleged in the complaint, No.\nFrom >a judgment that plaintiff recover nothing from defendant and taxing her with the costs, she appeals.\nBarnes & Olive by W. Faison Barnes for plaintiff appellant.\nHelms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston by E. Osborne Ayscue, Jr.., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0180-01",
  "first_page_order": 220,
  "last_page_order": 221
}