{
  "id": 8572463,
  "name": "EVERETT McKINLEY MOORE v. PAUL CROCKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Crocker",
  "decision_date": "1965-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 233"
    }
  ],
  "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": "110 S.E. 2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0673-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2823,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3479380458088483
    },
    "sha256": "b3dc7519dcabde5d69abbcf751c9edfc8524d882791038b1d95490f872abc82d",
    "simhash": "1:bf5fb4e0f2489829",
    "word_count": 452
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EVERETT McKINLEY MOORE v. PAUL CROCKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nThere was plenary evidence that plaintiff was not present when the collision occurred; that Small had borrowed plaintiff\u2019s Chevrolet; and that, when the collision occurred, Small was using the car for his own personal purposes.\nIn our view, there was sufficient evidence to support findings that the collision and plaintiff\u2019s damage were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant and also by the negligence of Small. Whether the testimony of Small, plaintiff\u2019s witness, discloses as a matter of law that negligence on his part was a proximate cause need not be decided. Assuming Small\u2019s negligence was a proximate cause, unless defendant\u2019s allegations of agency are established, such negligence of Small is not a bar to plaintiff\u2019s right to recover. By reason of G.S. 20-71.1, the agency issue, the burden of proof being on defendant, was for determination by the jury under proper instructions. In this connection, see Whiteside v. McCarson, 250 N.C. 673, 110 S.E. 2d 295.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial on all issues raised by the pleadings.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles F. Lambeth, Jr., for 'plaintiff appellant.",
      "Walser, Brinkley, Walser & McGirt for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EVERETT McKINLEY MOORE v. PAUL CROCKER.\n(Filed 7 April, 1965.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7\u00a7 54f, 55.1\u2014\nIn the owner\u2019s action to recover for damages to his car inflicted in a collision occurring when the owner was absent, nonsuit on the ground that the negligence of the driver of plaintiff\u2019s ear was a proximate cause of the damage is improper when there is evidence that the driver of plaintiff\u2019s car had borrowed it and was on a purely personal mission, since G.S. 20-71.1 merely takes the issue of agency to the jury, the burden of proof thereon remaining on defendant.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McConnell, J., October 1964 Civil Session of DAVIDSON.\nThis civil action grows out of a collision that occurred December 19, 1962, about 7:30 p.m., on N.C. Highway No. 64 between a 1953 Chevrolet operated by Franklin Small and a 1958 Ford operated by defendant. Both vehicles were proceeding west toward Lexington. When the collision occurred, Small was attempting to turn left into a dirt road and defendant was attempting to overtake and pass the Chevrolet Small was operating.\nPlaintiff, the absent owner of said Chevrolet, alleged the collision and the damage to his car were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant. Answering, defendant denied negligence and pleaded, conditionally, the contributory negligence of Small, while acting as agent for plaintiff, in bar of plaintiff's right to recover.\nEvidence was offered by both plaintiff and defendant. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the court, on motion of defendant, entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nCharles F. Lambeth, Jr., for 'plaintiff appellant.\nWalser, Brinkley, Walser & McGirt for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 270
}