{
  "id": 8571899,
  "name": "WORTH WARDSWORTH THREADGILL, Minor, by his Next Friend, WORTH JAMIE THREADGILL v. MARK LINSON KENDALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Threadgill ex rel. Threadgill v. Kendall",
  "decision_date": "1964-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "751",
  "last_page": "753",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 N.C. 751"
    }
  ],
  "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": "125 S.E. 2d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3577,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.612,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20660007591176166
    },
    "sha256": "b5d6bb00d355babac9cd023f3ee2f3aaadf36f0c75f60b6a30f747d00c16f8a4",
    "simhash": "1:84282af7c8ef0bb1",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:24.361559+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WORTH WARDSWORTH THREADGILL, Minor, by his Next Friend, WORTH JAMIE THREADGILL v. MARK LINSON KENDALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER C\u00fcRIAm.\nThe evidence suffices to show these facts: The collision occurred on a rural road. It is paved. The paved area is 23 feet wide. The center line is painted, dividing the paved area into one lane for northbound traffic; the other for southbound. On each side of the road are shoulders four or more feet in width.\nThe collision occurred about one mile south of Albemarle, in or just north of a valley. The distance from the low point in the road to the crest of the hill to the north is 300 feet, and a similar distance to the crest of the hill to the south. The road is straight. There are no signs limiting the speed at which vehicles may travel. There are no intersecting highways in the immediate vicinity, although there is a private drive on the west side of the highway. Defendant, traveling south at 45 miles per hour, was in the western, defendant\u2019s right hand lane. Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the shoulder on the west side of the highway. Plaintiff turned to his right in front of defendant\u2019s automobile. When plaintiff turned into the paved portion of the highway, defendant turned to his left to avoid a collision, but was unable to do so.\nPlaintiff, to recover, must offer proof of the negligence alleged. Plaintiff alleges he was riding in his proper traffic lane; the collision was caused by defendant\u2019s wrongful use of that lane. His proof is that defendant was in his proper lane and only left it to avoid a collision made imminent by plaintiff\u2019s wrongful use of defendant\u2019s lane. The variance between the allegations and proof is apparent. The nonsuit was proper. Hall v. Poteat, 257 N.C. 458, 125 S.E. 2d 924; Strong\u2019s N. C. Index, Pleading, sec. 28, Notes 364 and 365.\nAffirmed",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER C\u00fcRIAm."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D.. D. Smith and Hobart Morton for plaintiff.",
      "Richard L. Brown, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WORTH WARDSWORTH THREADGILL, Minor, by his Next Friend, WORTH JAMIE THREADGILL v. MARK LINSON KENDALL.\n(Filed 11 November, 1964.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 41a; Pleadings \u00a7 28\u2014\nWhere plaintiff alleges that he was riding his bicycle in his proper traffic lane and that the collision was caused by defendant\u2019s wrongful use of that lane, but his proof is that defendant was in defendant\u2019s proper lane and only left it to avoid a collision made imminent by plaintiff\u2019s turning from the shoulder of the highway across defendant\u2019s lane of travel, nonsuit for variance is proper.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., May 11, 1964, Civil Session of STANLY.\nPlaintiff, a 10 year old boy, seeks by this action compensation for personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligent operation of defendant\u2019s automobile.\nPlaintiff alleged he was, on the afternoon of April 4, 1964, riding his bicycle \u201cin a northerly direction over and along the traffic lane of North Carolina Highway No. 1901, provided for northbound traffic * * * when struck by the right front and right front fender of * * * [an] automobile owned and operated by the defendant over and along said highway in a southern direction.\u201d He amplifies and particularizes the negligence of defendant, which entitles him to compensation. He charges: (1) Unreasonable speed; (2) failure to decrease speed; (3) driving \u201cin the left lane of traffic, in violation of Section 20-146 of the General Statutes\u201d; (4) failing \u201cto give to the plaintiff and the bicycle ridden by him one-half of the main-traveled portion of the highway and to pass on the right\u201d; (5) failing to keep a proper lookout.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the court, on motion of defendant, entered a judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff, having excepted, appealed.\nD.. D. Smith and Hobart Morton for plaintiff.\nRichard L. Brown, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0751-01",
  "first_page_order": 795,
  "last_page_order": 797
}