{ "id": 53948, "name": "GEORGIA RAY ANDERSON v. JULIUS RUBIN HOLLIFIELD", "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Hollifield", "decision_date": "1997-02-10", "docket_number": "No. 384A96", "first_page": "480", "last_page": "484", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "345 N.C. 480" } ], "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": "473 S.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11913563 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "275-76", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569131 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264-65", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 1050", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1051" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659292 ], "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602" }, { "page": "603" }, { "page": "603" }, { "page": "604" }, { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571152 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" }, { "page": "429" }, { "page": "400" }, { "page": "431-33" }, { "page": "402-03" }, { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11913563 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" }, { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0426-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 9402, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.220563798677093e-07, "percentile": 0.9677407833429671 }, "sha256": "8cfca464cfb226a36b02c936c5978467628dc0c243d05f9a71af3060abee1058", "simhash": "1:a118d438176c18d1", "word_count": 1558 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:16.077233+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GEORGIA RAY ANDERSON v. JULIUS RUBIN HOLLIFIELD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice.\nThis case arose as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on 18 December 1992. Evidence at trial tended to show that plaintiff, Georgia Ray Anderson, was driving her unmarked police vehicle on Franklin Boulevard in Gastonia. She stopped at the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and South Chester Street. Defendant, Julius R. Hollifield, was operating a 1968 Ford pickup truck directly behind the vehicle driven by plaintiff. As plaintiff stopped at the intersection, defendant failed to stop in time and collided with the rear of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle. Photographs taken at the scene revealed no visible damage to either vehicle, and neither driver appeared to be seriously injured at the time.\nAt the close of trial on 13 February 1995, the trial court submitted two questions to the jury and received the following answers from the members of the jury:\n1. Did the negligence of the Defendant, Julius Rubin Hollifield, cause injury to the Plaintiff, Georgia Ray Anderson?\nAnswer: Yes.\n2. What amount is the Plaintiff, Georgia Ray Anderson, entitled to recover for personal injuries?\nAnswer: $1.00.\nPlaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as to issue two on the grounds that it was against the greater weight of the evidence. The trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s motion and entered judgment in accordance with the jury\u2019s verdict on 1 March 1995.\nPlaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court\u2019s judgment and remanded the case for a new hearing on the issue of damages \u201crelated solely to plaintiff\u2019s acute cervical sprain.\u201d Anderson v. Hollifield, 123 N.C. App. 426, 431, 473 S.E.2d 399, 402 (1996). The majority opinion in the Court of Appeals stated \u201cthat there are numerous rule violations by plaintiff in this case,\u201d id. at 429, 473 S.E.2d at 400, but treated the appeal as before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari and addressed the issues raised by plaintiff. Judge Smith dissented, reasoning that the appeal should not have been heard because of violations of the appellate rules. Id. at 431-33, 473 S.E.2d at 402-03. Defendant appeals to this Court as a matter of right by virtue of Judge Smith\u2019s dissent.\nThe first issue on appeal is whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the trial court\u2019s judgment. Defendant notes that plaintiff has never filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court as required by Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. He maintains that such a failure to file a notice of appeal deprives the appellate courts of jurisdiction to rule upon the merits of plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\nUnder Rule 3(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, any party entitled by law to appeal from a judgment of a superior court rendered in a civil action may take appeal by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies thereof upon all other parties in a timely manner. Appellate Rule 27(c) provides in pertinent part: \u201cCourts may not extend the time for taking an appeal. . . prescribed by these rules or by law.\u201d Appellate Rule 21(a)(1) provides: \u201cThe writ of certiorari may be issued in appropriate circumstances by either appellate court to permit review of the judgments ... of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action.\u201d Construing these rules together, we conclude that Rule 21(a)(1) gives an appellate court the authority to review the merits of an appeal by certiorari even if the party has failed to file notice of appeal in a timely manner. Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Appeals properly granted certiorari in this case.\nBy another assignment of error, defendant argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the jury\u2019s verdict on the issue of damages. We agree.\nThis Court has defined the standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings by trial courts granting or denying motions to set aside verdicts and order new trials.\nAppellate review \u201cis strictly limited to the determination of whether the record affirmatively demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion by the judge.\u201d Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 482, 290 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1982). The trial court\u2019s discretion is \u201c \u2018practically unlimited.\u2019 \u201d Id. [at 402], 290 S.E.2d at 603 (quoting from Settee v. Electric Ry., 170 N.C. 365, 367, 86 S.E. 1050, 1051 (1915)). A \u201cdiscretionary order pursuant to [N.C.]G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59 for or against a new trial upon any ground may be reversed on appeal only in those exceptional cases where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.\u201d Id. at 484, 290 S.E.2d at 603. \u201c[A] manifest abuse of discretion must be made to appear from the record as a whole with the party alleging the existence of an abuse bearing that heavy burden of proof.\u201d Id. at 484-85, 290 S.E.2d at 604. \u201c[A]n appellate court should not disturb a discretionary Rule 59 order unless it is reasonably convinced by the cold record that the trial judge\u2019s ruling probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.\u201d Id. at 487, 290 S.E.2d at 605.\nCampbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 321 N.C. 260, 264-65, 362 S.E.2d 273, 275-76 (1987) (alterations in original).\nIn reaching its decision to reverse the trial court\u2019s order denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the jury\u2019s verdict on the issue of damages, the Court of Appeals\u2019 majority relied upon the mistaken assumption that \u201c[defendant does not dispute that his negligence caused the acute cervical sprain suffered by plaintiff.\u201d Anderson, 123 N.C. App. at 430, 473 S.E.2d at 401. A review of the record demonstrates that defendant contested the existence of all of plaintiff\u2019s alleged injuries, including the alleged cervical sprain, and there is no indication whatsoever that defendant ever conceded that plaintiff suffered a cervical sprain as a result of this accident. Although defendant\u2019s answer admitted that the accident was caused by his negligence, the answer specifically denied the existence of either proximate cause or damages. Further, cross-examination of plaintiff\u2019s treating physician, Dr. Blake, by counsel for defendant tended to show that plaintiff had significant degenerative disc disease that preexisted the accident and that neck pain from this condition could have become manifest without the accident. It is the jury\u2019s function to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. In this case, the jury was presented with all of the evidence, was instructed properly on the law, and made its decision accordingly. Therefore, we cannot conclude from the \u201ccold record\u201d that the trial court\u2019s ruling in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.\nFor the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the Court of Appeals did not err in treating this purported appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remand this case to that court for further remand to the Superior Court, Gaston County, for reinstatement of its judgment.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James R. Carpenter and Barrett O. Poppler for plaintiffappellee.", "Baueom, Clay tor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan; and Colombo & Robinson, by William C. Robinson, for defendant-appellant.", "Stanley & Rhodes, L.L.P., by James M. Stanley, Jr., on behalf of The North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GEORGIA RAY ANDERSON v. JULIUS RUBIN HOLLIFIELD\nNo. 384A96\n(Filed 10 February 1997)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 291 (NCI4th)\u2014 notice of appeal not given \u2014 treated as petition for certiorari\nThe Court of Appeals had the authority to review a trial court\u2019s judgment in an automobile accident case even though plaintiff never filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. Construing Appellate Rules 27(c) and 21(a)(1) together, the appellate court has the authority to review the merits of an appeal by certiorari even if the party has failed to file notice of appeal in a timely matter.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 339.\n2. Trial \u00a7 526 (NCI4th)\u2014 automobile accident \u2014 damages\u2014 verdict of one dollar \u2014 motion to set aside denied \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThere was no abuse of discretion in an automobile accident case where the jury awarded $1.00 in damages and the trial court denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The record demonstrates that defendant contested the existence of all of plaintiff\u2019s alleged injuries and the jury was presented with all of the evidence, was instructed properly on the law, and made its decision accordingly. It cannot be concluded from the \u201ccold record\u201d that the trial court\u2019s ruling in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7 331.\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 123 N.C. App. 426, 473 S.E.2d 399 (1996), reversing the judgment denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages entered by Warren, J., on 1 March 1995 in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 1996.\nJames R. Carpenter and Barrett O. Poppler for plaintiffappellee.\nBaueom, Clay tor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan; and Colombo & Robinson, by William C. Robinson, for defendant-appellant.\nStanley & Rhodes, L.L.P., by James M. Stanley, Jr., on behalf of The North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0480-01", "first_page_order": 534, "last_page_order": 538 }