Williams v. Gray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Williams v. Gray

210 S.E.2d 444, 24 N.C. App. 305, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1986

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 18, 1974

DocketNo. 748DC801

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 S.E.2d 444 (Williams v. Gray) 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

Williams v. Gray, 210 S.E.2d 444, 24 N.C. App. 305, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1986 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Although plaintiff has violated the rules of this Court by failing to note in the record his exceptions to the charge, we decline to dismiss the appeal on this ground and turn to the assignments of error. See Houston v. Rivens, 22 N.C. App. 423, 206 S.E. 2d 739.

Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the intoxication when the issue had not been properly raised. Any defect in the charge in this respect is immaterial, however, for the jury did not reach the issue of [307]*307contributory negligence. This assignment of error is therefore without merit.

Plaintiff also contends that the court erred by failing to instruct that a pedestrian has the right-of-way when crossing a highway at an unmarked crosswalk. Such an instruction was omitted from the initial charge, but upon request of plaintiff’s counsel''the instruction was later given. Any error in omission was thereby corrected.

We have examined the remaining portions of the record and find

Np error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

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