Lineback v. Wood

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Lineback v. Wood

167 S.E.2d 44, 4 N.C. App. 512, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1538

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 30, 1969

DocketNo. 6925SC219

StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E.2d 44 (Lineback v. Wood) 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

Lineback v. Wood, 167 S.E.2d 44, 4 N.C. App. 512, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1538 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Brock, J.

This appeal presents no novel or new question; it presents only the question of whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit. The plaintiff’s evidence in this Record on Appeal is conflicting and inconsistent upon the question of how the accident occurred; however, it is for the jury, not the court, to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witness and to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. Brinkley v. Insurance Co., 271 N.C. 301, 156 S.E. 2d 225; Tindle v. Denny, 3 N.C. App. 567 (filed 5 February 1969). When viewed in the light of the well established rule that on a motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff’s evidence is to be taken as true and be con[513]*513sidered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brinkley v. Insurance Co., supra, we hold that plaintiff’s evidence, as disclosed by this Record on Appeal, was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion. It follows that we disagree with the trial judge upon this question, and that a new trial must be ordered.

New trial.

Campbell and MoRRis, JJ., concur.

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

Brock, J.

This appeal presents no novel or new question; it presents only the question of whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit. The plaintiff’s evidence in this Record on Appeal is conflicting and inconsistent upon the question of how the accident occurred; however, it is for the jury, not the court, to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witness and to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. Brinkley v. Insurance Co., 271 N.C. 301, 156 S.E. 2d 225; Tindle v. Denny, 3 N.C. App. 567 (filed 5 February 1969). When viewed in the light of the well established rule that on a motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff’s evidence is to be taken as true and be con[513]*513sidered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brinkley v. Insurance Co., supra, we hold that plaintiff’s evidence, as disclosed by this Record on Appeal, was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion. It follows that we disagree with the trial judge upon this question, and that a new trial must be ordered.

New trial.

Campbell and MoRRis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E.2d 44, 4 N.C. App. 512, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lineback-v-wood-ncctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack