Hinson v. Sparrow

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Hinson v. Sparrow

204 S.E.2d 925, 21 N.C. App. 554, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1872

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 15, 1974

DocketNo. 748SC163

StatusPublished

This text of 204 S.E.2d 925 (Hinson v. Sparrow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinson v. Sparrow, 204 S.E.2d 925, 21 N.C. App. 554, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1872 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The issue of the credibility of plaintiff’s damages was not or should not have been before the trial judge on a motion for directed verdict. The jury and not the judge passes on credibility. The question is whether the plaintiff has offered enough evidence to permit a legitimate inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. We hold that the evidence as to defendant’s backing up and the damage to plaintiff and her car presented a legitimate inference of negligence in the form of improper lookout or excessive speed, or both. See Conway v. Timbers, Inc., 7 N.C. App. 10, 171 S.E. 2d 62 (1969), cert. denied, 276 N.C. 183 (1970); Murray v. Wyatt, 245 N.C. 123, 95 S.E. 2d 541 (1956). See also annotations on the backing of automobiles at 67 A.L.R. 647, 63 A.L.R. 2d 5, 63 A.L.R. 2d 108, and 63 A.L.R. 2d 184.

Reversed.

Judges Morris and Vaughn concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The issue of the credibility of plaintiff’s damages was not or should not have been before the trial judge on a motion for directed verdict. The jury and not the judge passes on credibility. The question is whether the plaintiff has offered enough evidence to permit a legitimate inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. We hold that the evidence as to defendant’s backing up and the damage to plaintiff and her car presented a legitimate inference of negligence in the form of improper lookout or excessive speed, or both. See Conway v. Timbers, Inc., 7 N.C. App. 10, 171 S.E. 2d 62 (1969), cert. denied, 276 N.C. 183 (1970); Murray v. Wyatt, 245 N.C. 123, 95 S.E. 2d 541 (1956). See also annotations on the backing of automobiles at 67 A.L.R. 647, 63 A.L.R. 2d 5, 63 A.L.R. 2d 108, and 63 A.L.R. 2d 184.

Reversed.

Judges Morris and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.E.2d 925, 21 N.C. App. 554, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinson-v-sparrow-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack