Spencer v. . Hassell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Spencer v. . Hassell

166 S.E. 732, 203 N.C. 855, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 121

DecidedNovember 30, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 732 (Spencer v. . Hassell) 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

Spencer v. . Hassell, 166 S.E. 732, 203 N.C. 855, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 121 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per, Curiam.

There was evidence at the trial of this action tending to show, as contended by the plaintiff, that the collision which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff, was caused by the negligence of the defendant. There was evidence, on the other band, tending to show, as contended by the defendant, that the collision was caused by the negligence of plaintiff’s husband, who was driving the automobile in which she was riding. All the evidence was submitted to the jury under instructions which are free from reversible error. The instructions with respect to the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries were in substantial accord with the law as applied in numerous, cases decided by this Court. The plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial, as a matter of law. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

Per, Curiam.

There was evidence at the trial of this action tending to show, as contended by the plaintiff, that the collision which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff, was caused by the negligence of the defendant. There was evidence, on the other band, tending to show, as contended by the defendant, that the collision was caused by the negligence of plaintiff’s husband, who was driving the automobile in which she was riding. All the evidence was submitted to the jury under instructions which are free from reversible error. The instructions with respect to the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries were in substantial accord with the law as applied in numerous, cases decided by this Court. The plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial, as a matter of law. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 732, 203 N.C. 855, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-hassell-nc-1932.