{
  "id": 8559012,
  "name": "J. H. CALLICUTT v. DOUGLAS SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Callicutt v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "253",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 N.C. 252"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 S.E. 2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567026
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 202",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571451
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657611
      ],
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0614-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 3935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3236412624828706
    },
    "sha256": "1b827e5f71083cce9802a413173aea016effd8558503b5d947cd65734bd08c03",
    "simhash": "1:4a52328e165895dd",
    "word_count": 685
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:43.953535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Moore, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. CALLICUTT v. DOUGLAS SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the beginning of the defendant\u2019s argument in the Superior Court, his attorney attempted to present to the jury a large chart setting forth the defendant\u2019s life expectancy and a number of computations to support a verdict far in excess of the amount sued for. Upon objection by the plaintiff, it was excluded and the defendant complains that this was error. While counsel is allowed wide latitude in argument to the jury, and to use figures and calculations in support of his position, he, in effect, was attempting to use this chart as an exhibit which had never been introduced in evidence. The exception is untenable.\nThe defendant excepts to the court\u2019s instruction on damages, but upon examining it, it is found to be an almost verbatim statement of the rule of damages as taken from Ledford v. Lumber Co., 183 N.C. 614, 112 S.E. 421 (1922). It has been used as an accurate statement by the judges of the Superior Court for many years and has been approved by this Court in numerous cases. These exceptions are without merit.\nWhile it is true that the defendant\u2019s evidence showed serious and painful injuries, and substantial hospital and medical expense as a result, the amount awarded by the jury indicates that it had difficulty in arriving at a verdict in favor of the defendant. This was reflected by the length of time taken for its deliberations, as well as the amount awarded. This phase of the matter was presented to the trial judge upon the insistence of the defendant that the amount was so small that it went against the greater weight of the evidence. We have frequently held that this kind of motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, Dixon v. Young, 255 N.C. 578, 122 S.E. 2d 202, and it was held in Brown v. Griffin, 263 N.C. 61, 138 S.E. 2d 823 that \u201c(t)he judge had the discretionary power to set the verdict aside; but he was not compelled to act.\u201d Abuse of discretion is not shown and after fully considering all of the defendant\u2019s exceptions, we find that in the trial there was\nNo error.\nMoore, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Randolph Ingram Attorney for defendant appellant.",
      "Jordan, Wright, Henson and Nichols by G. Marlin Evans Attorneys for plaintiff appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. CALLICUTT v. DOUGLAS SMITH.\n(Filed 4 May, 1966.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 11\u2014\nWhile counsel is allowed wide latitude in the argument to the jury, the refusal to permit counsel .to present a chart with computations to substantiate the argument as to the injured person\u2019s life expectancy and the quantum of damages, which chart amounted to an exhibit not introduced in evidence, is not error.\n2. Damages \u00a7 15\u2014\nThe court\u2019s instruction on the issue of damages held in conformity with the rule laid down in Le\u00f3jord v. Lumber Go., 183 N.O. 614, and not subject to exception.\n8. Trial \u00a7 52\u2014\nA motion to set aside the verdict for inadequacy of award is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the denial of the motion will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse.\nMooee, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, E.J., January 1966 Session, Randolph Superior Court.\nJ. H. Callicutt brought suit against the defendant Douglas Smith to recover some $600.00 for damages done to his truck in a collision occurring May 11, 1964. He made the usual allegations of negligence, saying, in effect, that the defendant\u2019s car ran into his truck while the latter was making a left turn from Fayetteville Street to Walker Avenue in the City of Asheboro. The defendant denied negligence and set up a cross action against the plaintiff in which he sought to recover $26,180.00 for personal injuries and property damage. The jury answered the issues of negligence against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant and awarded Smith $400.00 for damages to his car and $1,000 for personal injuries.\nThe defendant moved to set aside the verdict for inadequacy and upon denial of the motion, appealed, assigning errors.\nJohn Randolph Ingram Attorney for defendant appellant.\nJordan, Wright, Henson and Nichols by G. Marlin Evans Attorneys for plaintiff appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 289
}