Atkins v. Daniel

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Atkins v. Daniel

92 S.E.2d 767, 244 N.C. 218, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 669

DecidedMay 23, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E.2d 767 (Atkins v. Daniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins v. Daniel, 92 S.E.2d 767, 244 N.C. 218, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 669 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

All the evidence shows that the injuries and damages sustained by both plaintiff and defendant resulted from the collision. Therefore, the ultimate inquiry was to determine the cause of collision.

The court, while not defining contributory negligence eo nomine, made it plain to the jury that if the collision was proximately caused by negligence on the part of both drivers, both the first and second issues should be answered, “Yes,” and that in such event neither party could recover from the other. The first two issues, under the court’s instructions, adequately presented the questions determinative of liability, viz.: Was the collision proximately caused (1) by the sole negligence of defendant, or (2) by the sole negligence of plaintiff, or (3) by the concurring negligence of both defendant and plaintiff? Upon conflicting evidence, the jury resolved the determinative issues in plaintiff’s favor.

Careful consideration of appellant’s exceptive assignments of error, which relate principally to the charge, fails to disclose any error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

All the evidence shows that the injuries and damages sustained by both plaintiff and defendant resulted from the collision. Therefore, the ultimate inquiry was to determine the cause of collision.

The court, while not defining contributory negligence eo nomine, made it plain to the jury that if the collision was proximately caused by negligence on the part of both drivers, both the first and second issues should be answered, “Yes,” and that in such event neither party could recover from the other. The first two issues, under the court’s instructions, adequately presented the questions determinative of liability, viz.: Was the collision proximately caused (1) by the sole negligence of defendant, or (2) by the sole negligence of plaintiff, or (3) by the concurring negligence of both defendant and plaintiff? Upon conflicting evidence, the jury resolved the determinative issues in plaintiff’s favor.

Careful consideration of appellant’s exceptive assignments of error, which relate principally to the charge, fails to disclose any error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 767, 244 N.C. 218, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-daniel-nc-1956.