{
  "id": 8574209,
  "name": "HARRY M. HICKS v. THOMAS G. LANE, Administrator of the Estate of BRUCE SISTRUNK, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hicks v. Lane",
  "decision_date": "1964-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 489"
    }
  ],
  "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": 211,
    "char_count": 2886,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "sha256": "cb8b5ab7d3f31296dced034a387a43ce533d61d21697b1986a6113dbd7c7d1f2",
    "simhash": "1:0cfe3450722023e8",
    "word_count": 455
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HARRY M. HICKS v. THOMAS G. LANE, Administrator of the Estate of BRUCE SISTRUNK, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe two vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions. The collision occurred on the portion of The Plaza for northbound traffic. It is conceded that the negligence of the driver of the southbound vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the collision and its tragic consequences.\nPlaintiff was the sole occupant of the Chevrolet station wagon. He testified he could not remember anything from 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, May 6, 1961, until he \u201cbecame awake\u201d in the hospital the following Tuesday. Sistrunk was the sole occupant of the 1957 Ford.\nPlaintiff offered evidence tending to show his Chevrolet station wagon was the northbound car. Defendant offered evidence tending to show the Ford operated by Sistrunk was the northbound car. Whether plaintiff or Sistrunk was the driver of the southbound vehicle was the crucial controverted fact. This question was resolved by the jury in plaintiff\u2019s favor.\nAfter careful consideration of defendant\u2019s assignments of error, the conclusion reached is that none discloses prejudicial error or merits particular discussion. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sanders & Walker and J. Howard Bunn, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Jones, Hewson \u25a0& Woolard for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARRY M. HICKS v. THOMAS G. LANE, Administrator of the Estate of BRUCE SISTRUNK, Deceased.\n(Filed 18 March 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., August 12, 1963, Schedule \u201cA\u201d Session of MecKleNbueg.\nPlaintiff\u2019s action for damages for personal injuries and property damage, and defendant\u2019s counterclaim for damages for the wrongful death of his intestate, grow out of a collision that occurred Sunday, May 7, 1961, about 12:20 a.m., on The Plaza, a street in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, between a 1959 Chevrolet station wagon operated by plaintiff and a 1957 Ford operated by Bruce Sistrunk, defendant\u2019s intestate.\nIssues arising on the pleadings were answered as follows: \u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the deceased, Bruce Sistrunk, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: Yes. 2. What amount of damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant for; A. Property Damage? ANSWER: 1500. B. Personal Injuries? ANSWER: 4071.40. 3. Was the death of Bruce Sistrunk caused by the negligence of the plaintiff, as alleged in the Counterclaim? ANSWER: No. 4. Did the plaintiff operate his automobile heedlessly and in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of others, as alleged in the Counterclaim? ANSWER: No. 5. What damages, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff? ANSWER: None.\u201d\nThe court, in accordance with the verdict, entered judgment that plaintiff have and recover of defendant the sum of $5,571.40, that defendant be taxed with the costs, and that defendant recover nothing of plaintiff on his counterclaim.\nDefendant excepted and appealed.\nSanders & Walker and J. Howard Bunn, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nJones, Hewson \u25a0& Woolard for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 530
}