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

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided October 24, 1973·No. No. 7316SC669·Published

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

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.

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

199 S.E.2d 698 (Kinlaw v. Tyndall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related