{
  "id": 8564803,
  "name": "SUE JOHNSON GILBERT v. BLANCHE H. MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gilbert v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1966-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "679",
  "last_page": "681",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 N.C. 679"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S.E. 2d 876",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 2d 462",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S.E. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N.C. 798",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655144
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0798-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 S.E. 2d 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609819
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574243
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S.E. 2d 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574582
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 853",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559890
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0164-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 359,
    "char_count": 4904,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2242285797865024e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6042209410664483
    },
    "sha256": "5f824db38b6ee2a73c64c283221d6ad897179148189dab07611ba0e672490c9b",
    "simhash": "1:0221a572aa990b30",
    "word_count": 824
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:58.333486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SUE JOHNSON GILBERT v. BLANCHE H. MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Higgins, J.\nThe defendant\u2019s Assignment of Error No. 1 involves the court\u2019s denial of the motion to nonsuit. The evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is sufficient to go to the jury and to sustain the verdict. Bennett v. Young, 266 N.C. 164, 145 S.E. 2d 853; Bongardt v. Frink, 265 N.C. 130, 143 S.E. 2d 286; Moss v. Tate, 264 N.C. 544, 142 S.E. 2d 161. The motion was properly denied.\nAssignment of Error No. 2 with respect to the exclusion of evidence requires a voyage of discovery through the record in order to ascertain what is involved. Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490, 124 S.E. 2d 364; Nichols v. McFarland, 249 N.C. 125, 105 S.E. 2d 294; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E. 2d 829. Actually the voyage of discovery discloses nothing of consequence. Assignment of Error No. 2 is not sustained.\nThe defendant places her main reliance for a new trial on the court\u2019s refusal to set aside the verdict because of the improper and prejudicial remarks to the jury \u201cwhich [according to the defendant\u2019s brief] implied that the defendant had certain limits to his [sic] liability insurance.\u201d The remarks to which the assignment is addressed are quoted in the statement of facts. By inference, at least, it appears the presiding judge did not hear the remarks'. However, in the brief, defendant\u2019s counsel admitted that \u201c'Judge Hall was' advised of what had been said while the jury was out and offered to recall the jurors and instruct them to disregard the argument. The defendant chose not to have this done.\u201d (emphasis added)\nBy failing to move for a mistrial and by deciding to leave the jury uninstructed further with reference to the argument, the defendant took her chances on a favorable verdict. She may not be heard to complain when the verdict was returned against her. The rule in such cases is stated by Stacy, J., later C.J., in Allen v. Garibaldi, 187 N.C. 798, 123 S.E. 66: \u201cThere was no motion for a mistrial, or venire de novo, because of these improper questions (liability insurance). Defendant elected to proceed with the trial and to take his chances with the jury as then impaneled.\u201d The motion for a new trial was denied.\nThe defendant did not except to the argument by plaintiff\u2019s counsel. She attempts to make use of it as ground for a motion to set the verdict aside. The motion was addressed to the court\u2019s sound discretion, reviewable only for abuse. Goldston v. Wright, 257 N.C. 279, 125 S.E. 2d 462; Pruitt v. Ray, 230 N.C. 322, 52 S.E. 2d 876.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Higgins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bryan & Bryan, Robert C. Bryan, D. K. Stewart for plaintiff ap-pellee.",
      "Charles R. Williams, Robert B. Morgan, Robert H. Jones, Gerald Arnold, Morgan, Williams and Jones for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SUE JOHNSON GILBERT v. BLANCHE H. MOORE.\n(Filed 14 December, 1966.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nAn assignment of error should disclose the question sought to be presented without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself.\n2. Trial \u00a7 50\u2014\nWhere the court offers to recall the jury and instruct them to disregard improper argument of plaintiff\u2019s attorney with reference to liability insurance but defendant\u2019s counsel refuses the court\u2019s offer and enters no exception to the argument and makes no motion for mistrial, and takes a chance on a favorable verdict, defendant may not, after the verdict has been rendered, object to the court\u2019s refusal to set aside the verdict because of the improper remarks of plaintiff\u2019s counsel.\nAppeal by defendant from Hall, J., August, 1966 Session, Har-nett Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover for personal injuries received in a collision between two automobiles \u2014 one driven by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant. The defendant denied negligence, pleaded contributory negligence, and set up a counterclaim. The pleadings consist of the complaint, the amended answer, and the reply to the counterclaim.\nAt the trial both parties testifi\u00e9d. Their evidence was conflicting. The court submitted issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and the plaintiff\u2019s damages. During the argument to the jury, according to the record, plaintiff\u2019s counsel made this statement:\n\u201cMr. Morgan argued to you that the damages in this action were not more than four or five thousand dollars. We all know what he meant. I\u2019m nobody\u2019s fool. And I tell you that this is not a $5,000 minimum injury lawsuit. This is a $25,000 minimum injury lawsuit, and I know what I\u2019m talking about.\u201d\nThe following, with reference thereto, is stated in the defendant\u2019s brief:\n\u201cDefendant\u2019s counsel brought to the attention of the Court the remarks of plaintiff\u2019s counsel immediately after the jury retired, and the Court offered to recall the jury and instruct them to disregard the argument. The defendant chose not to have this done.\u201d\nThe jury answered all issues in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment in accordance therewith, the defendant appealed.\nBryan & Bryan, Robert C. Bryan, D. K. Stewart for plaintiff ap-pellee.\nCharles R. Williams, Robert B. Morgan, Robert H. Jones, Gerald Arnold, Morgan, Williams and Jones for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0679-01",
  "first_page_order": 719,
  "last_page_order": 721
}