Kinlaw v. Tyndall

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Kinlaw v. Tyndall

199 S.E.2d 698, 19 N.C. App. 669, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1734

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 24, 1973

DocketNo. 7316SC669

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.E.2d 698 (Kinlaw v. Tyndall) 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

Kinlaw v. Tyndall, 199 S.E.2d 698, 19 N.C. App. 669, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1734 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

The sole question before this court is whether the trial court erred in allowing defendants’ motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence.

On defendants’ motion for a directed verdict the evidence must be considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff. It is our opinion that when the evidence is so considered it is insufficient to raise an inference that the injuries to the minor child of plaintiff were proximately caused by the actionable negligence of the defendant Edith Ann Tyndall in the operation of the automobile. Brewer v. Green, 254 N.C. 615, 119 S.E. 2d 610 (1961).

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.

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