{
  "id": 8559219,
  "name": "GEORGE ROOSEVELT McGEE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIS LLOYD COX, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "McGee v. Cox",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "314",
  "last_page": "315",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 N.C. 314"
    }
  ],
  "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": "9 A.L.R. 2d 1337",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1347"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3493,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.473971841601576
    },
    "sha256": "e30dd6317f15baeb69ca704e2b3c935a5243095f421e7ded6a22dc36b4732c0a",
    "simhash": "1:d36387db4bad4cba",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "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": [
      "GEORGE ROOSEVELT McGEE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIS LLOYD COX, Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe rule of law applicable to plaintiff\u2019s allegations and evidence is stated as follows:\n\u201cWhere the owner or operator of a motor vehicle has knowledge of the defective condition of the vehicle which would make riding in it hazardous or unsafe for a guest, and believes or has reason to believe that the guest would not discover the danger, he has an obligation to warn the guest of such danger and risk and to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of the vehicle in view of its known defective condition. For instance, where he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that such equipment was in a defective condition, and the guest had no knowledge, actual or constructive thereof, the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is liable for injuries sustained by a guest by reason of ... a defect in ... a door. . . .\u201d 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 500 (1963).\nSee Annot., Automobile Guest \u2014 Falling Through Door, 9 A.L.R. 2d 1337, 1347 (1950).\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to take his case to the jury, whose province it was to resolve the conflicts in all the evidence. The judgment of nonsuit is\nReversed.\nMoore, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schoch, Schoch and Schoch by Arch K. Schoch, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Jordan, Wright, Henson & Nichols by Karl N. Hill, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE ROOSEVELT McGEE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIS LLOYD COX, Defendant.\n(Filed 11 May, 1966.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 41r\u2014\nEvidence that the owner had knowledge of the defective condition of the right door latch, that he had warned several passengers not to lean against the door, that he failed to warn plaintiff passenger, and that the door came open on a left turn and plaintiff, who was leaning on the door a little, fell out to his injury, held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence.\nMooee, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McConnell, J., January 3, 1966 Civil Session of Guileoed, High Point Division.\nAction for personal injuries.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, tends to show these facts: On October 22, 1963, plaintiff was one of two passengers in the front seat of defendant\u2019s 1956 Chevrolet automobile, which he was operating at 30-35 MPH on South Main Street in the City of High Point. Plaintiff was seated next to the right door and might have been leaning against it \u201ca little bit, but not much.\u201d On a slight curve, the door came open; plaintiff fell out and was injured. Defendant had purchased the car earlier in 1963. He had had the brakes relined, but had done no other work on the car prior to the accident. Gene Frye, the man who relined the brakes, examined the door latch at that time. He found the teeth of the cogwheel in the latch to be worn. Frye told defendant that \u201cthe latch was wore out,\u201d and that if he would get a new door latch he would put it on for him. Defendant never mentioned the latch to Frye again. In August 1963, defendant had warned several persons not to lean against that door, that it would come open. He had not, however, warned plaintiff. The door had never before come open when plaintiff was in the car, and he had no knowledge that the latch was defective.\nThe foregoing facts are supported by the necessary allegations in the complaint. Defendant offered evidence in contradiction of that offered by plaintiff. At the close of all the evidence, defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit was allowed, and plaintiff appealed.\nSchoch, Schoch and Schoch by Arch K. Schoch, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nJordan, Wright, Henson & Nichols by Karl N. Hill, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0314-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 351
}