{
  "id": 8571114,
  "name": "GORDON P. HAMILTON v. ALVIN LEON JOSEY and MAINTENANCE SUPPLY CO., INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Josey",
  "decision_date": "1967-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "105",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 N.C. 105"
    }
  ],
  "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": 319,
    "char_count": 6066,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3411540595610014
    },
    "sha256": "4d5be9b9267742c602fab51d6dc337f72ea0d483a31c8cde2c539727c780c7c0",
    "simhash": "1:e1c4cbf511c85070",
    "word_count": 972
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GORDON P. HAMILTON v. ALVIN LEON JOSEY and MAINTENANCE SUPPLY CO., INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cueiam.\nThe evidence in the light of plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A clearly discloses that the collision occurred in the Southwest quadrant of the intersection when the defendant\u2019s truck was leaving and the plaintiff\u2019s Plymouth was entering the intersection. The evidence warranted the jury in finding both drivers negligent. The record does not sustain plaintiff\u2019s contention the Court committed error in submitting the issue of contributory negligence.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s other assignments of error relate to the Court\u2019s charge on the issue of contributory negligence. The defendant had pleaded the plaintiff\u2019s speed, failure to keep a proper lookout, to have his vehicle under control, and to yield the right-of-way to the defendant\u2019s truck, which was already in the intersection before the plaintiff entered.\nThe Court charged the jury that the burden of proof on the contributory negligence issue rested on the defendant and an affirmative answer on that issue required the jury to find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the plaintiff was guilty of one or more of the negligent acts specified in the further defense, and, in addition, should find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that such act or acts constituted a proximate cause of the accident. A failure so to find by the greater weight of the evidence required a negative answer. The Court charged that the yellow blinking light facing plaintiff\u2019s driver gave him the right to enter the intersection with caution. The Court charged on sudden emergency, instructing the jury that the plaintiff\u2019s driver had the right to proceed through the yellow light with caution and to rely on other motorists to stop at the red light, and if the defendant failed to stop at the red light, and the failure created a sudden emergency, the plaintiff\u2019s driver should be judged in the light of that emergency.\nThe issues in the case were the usual ones involving intersection collisions. Was the defendant negligent? Was the plaintiff contrib-utorily negligent? Were both negligent? The jury, after hearing the evidence, argument of counsel, and the charge of the Court which, when considered contextually, is freje from error, decided both drivers were at fault.\nIn the verdict and judgment thereon, we find.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John D. Warren for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Carpenter, Webb & Golding by\u25a0 John G. Golding for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GORDON P. HAMILTON v. ALVIN LEON JOSEY and MAINTENANCE SUPPLY CO., INC.\n(Filed 22 November, 1967.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 88\u2014\nTbe evidence tended to show that defendant, traveling south and faced with a blinking red light, entered the intersection without stopping, and that plaintiff, traveling east and faced with a blinking yellow light, entered the intersection without stopping, and struck defendant\u2019s vehicle on the right side near the rear wheels, in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Held: It was not error for the court to submit the issue of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 19\u2014\nA motorist faced with a blinking yellow light has the right to enter tbe intersection with caution.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 90\u2014\nThe court\u2019s instruction in this automobile intersection accident case held properly to have charged the jury on the questions arising on the evidence in regard to negligence, contributory negligence, the burden of proof, proximate cause and sudden emergency.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Froneberger, J., May 15, 1967 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Civil Session, MecKLENburg Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover for personal injuries and property damage he sustained as a result of a collision between the plaintiff\u2019s Plymouth automobile, driven by Jon C. Mullis, and a GMC truck, owned by Maintenance Supply Co., Inc., and driven by its agent, Alvin Leon Josey. The collision occurred at the intersection of West Ninth Street and North Smith Street in Charlotte.\nThe plaintiff approached the intersection from the West on Ninth Street. The truck approached the intersection from the North on Smith Street. At the intersection, a blinking yellow traffic light was in operation on Ninth Street. A blinking red traffic light was in operation on Smith Street. Both streets were hard surfaced.\nThe truck entered the intersection without stopping, and the Plymouth likewise failed to stop. The two vehicles collided at a point near the street corner in the Southwest quadrant of the intersection. The left front of the Plymouth struck the truck on its right side near the rear wheels. The two vehicles moved about 5 feet after the impact and stopped in contact with each other. The rear of the truck failed to clear the intersection by about 4 feet. Only the front of the Plymouth entered the intersection. Skid-marks extended backward from the Plymouth for several feet on Ninth Street.\nBoth parties introduced evidence. The plaintiff\u2019s witness, Roy E. Wilson, traffic investigator of the City Police Department, arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred, and before either vehicle had been removed. He prepared a chart depicting the physical conditions at the intersection which he used to illustrate his testimony. The chart was introduced by the plaintiff as his Exhibit A and is filed with the record on appeal.\nThe plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent by entering the intersection without stopping as he was required to do by the blinking red light. The defendant alleged the plaintiff was con-tributorily negligent by driving too fast, by not keeping a proper lookout, by not having his vehicle under proper control, and in entering when the defendant\u2019s truck was already in the intersection. Each alleged the details of the other\u2019s negligent acts. The evidence was sufficient to raise jury questions on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. The jury found the defendant was negligent and \u201cthe plaintiff, by his own negligence, contributed to his injuries and damages\u201d. From the judgment that the plaintiff recover nothing and his action be dismissed at his cost, the plaintiff appealed.\nJohn D. Warren for plaintiff appellant.\nCarpenter, Webb & Golding by\u25a0 John G. Golding for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0105-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 143
}