{
  "id": 8575829,
  "name": "JESSIE P. TIDWELL v. GALMON GARFIELD CRISP and BENNY GARFIELD CRISP, Minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tidwell v. Crisp",
  "decision_date": "1965-10-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "491",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 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": 280,
    "char_count": 3584,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.6,
    "sha256": "951602c320964fa82022144a7c9fd84f642f50e3d1c73598eb1b1004d3aa1a5f",
    "simhash": "1:0d0215beeeb8149b",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JESSIE P. TIDWELL v. GALMON GARFIELD CRISP and BENNY GARFIELD CRISP, Minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nPlaintiff sues to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her when the automobile in which she was riding ran off the road (Rural Paved Road 2425 in Gaston County) and collided with trees. She alleges that defendant, Benny Garfield Crisp (Benny), was driving the automobile and the accident and her injury were caused by his negligence, consisting of operating the automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reckless driving, speeding, failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to keep the vehicle under reasonable control. She also alleges that the automobile was owned by and registered in the name of defendant G\u00e1lmon Garfield Crisp (Galmon), father of Benny, it was a family purpose car, and Benny is a member of Galmon\u2019s household and drove the car as Galmon\u2019s agent.\nDefendants, answering, deny all material allegations of the complaint including the allegations of agency, and aver that plaintiff was operating the automobile at the time of the accident and, if the jury should.find that Benny was the operator, that plaintiff was contribu-torily negligent in failing to protest to Benny concerning the manner of his operation.\nFor its verdict the jury found that plaintiff was injured by Benny\u2019s negligence, plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, the amount of plaintiff\u2019s damages is $10,000, and Benny was not Galmon\u2019s agent. Judgment was entered accordingly. Benny appeals, and assigns as error the denial of his motion for nonsuit, and challenges certain aspects of the judge\u2019s instructions to the jury.\nThe evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, discloses these facts: Benny, age 18, and.plaintiff, age 39, worked the \u201cnight shift\u201d in the same mill. After work on the morning of 9 August 1962 Benny invited plaintiff and another to go for a ride in his new car. They left plaintiff\u2019s home about 8:00 A.M., drove to South Carolina, and made three stops at beer taverns. At the first stop Benny drank a bottle of beer and shared with three others two pitchers of beer \u2014 plaintiff drank one glass. At the second stop Benny drank two bottles of beer \u2014 plaintiff drank one. At the third stop Benny drank one bottle of beer. From there they headed north toward plaintiff\u2019s home. Benny \u201cscratched off\u201d and once under way kept increasing speed. He was driving between 60 and 80 miles per hour. The right wheels ran onto the shoulder of the road. Plaintiff said, \u201cOh, Lord, Benny,\u201d and he said, \u201cI\u2019m driving.\u201d The car made tire marks a distance of 588 feet on the shoulder; the shoulder was \u201ctorn up\u201d \u2014 \u201cthe dirt was loosened.\u201d The automobile ran off the road to the right and struck two trees. Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries. Among other injuries, her right leg \u201cwas severed all except for a large nerve and artery and vein in the back part of the knee.\u201d The leg was not amputated but \u201cShe has a shortening of the right lower extremity of about an inch and one half and a fusion of the right knee. There is no joint.\u201d \u2022\nDefendants\u2019 evidence tends to show that plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident.\nThe evidence is sufficient to repel defendants\u2019 motion for compulsory nonsuit. The charge is free of prejudicial error and the exceptions thereto are not sustained.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u2022 Whitener & Mitchum for plaintiff.",
      "Hollowell & Stott for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JESSIE P. TIDWELL v. GALMON GARFIELD CRISP and BENNY GARFIELD CRISP, Minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem.\n(Filed 20 October, 1965.)\nAppeal by defendant, Benny Garfield Crisp, from Martin, S. J., March 1965 Civil Session of Gaston.\n\u2022 Whitener & Mitchum for plaintiff.\nHollowell & Stott for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 531
}