Branch v. Seitz, 310
| Decision Date | 04 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 310,310 |
| Citation | 262 N.C. 727,138 S.E.2d 493 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mrs. Bertie BRANCH v. Margaret Griffin SEITZ. |
Russell Berry and Simpson & Simpson, Morganton, for appellant.
Patton, Ervin & Starnes, Morganton, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff, when asked how defendant drove, replied: 'She started off at a high rate of speed.' This answer was, on defendant's motion stricken. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff testified, without objection, that defendant, when she crossed Meeting House Street, was driving between 50 and 55 miles per hour. Conceding, without deciding, the court erred, the error was harmless.
Plaintiff testified defendant was not confronted by an approaching car. On cross examination of plaintiff, she was asked about a written statement purportedly made by her on August 30, 1961. This statement detailed events leading to the collission. It negatives plaintiff's charge of excessive speed. It affirms defendant's assertion that she left the roadway to avoid a collision with an approaching car. The statement concludes: 'I have read the above two page statement which is true and correct and I adopt said statement as my own.' Then followed what purported to be plaintiff's signature. Plaintiff refused to admit or to deny the genuineness of the signature.
Defendant offered testimony from other witnesses that plaintiff, while a patient in the hospital for treatment the first time, stated that the collision was caused in the manner claimed by defendant.
Plaintiff attempted to explain her refusal to admit she signed the statement, and made the oral statement attributed to her by patients in the hospital, by asserting she was in such pain from the injuries and was so affected by drugs administered that she had no recollection of anything she said or did.
Plaintiff was hospitalized from August 23, 1961 to September 3, 1961 for treatment of the injuries caused by the collision. She was again admitted for skin grafting on September 18, 1961. She remained until October 18, 1961. Dr. Hairfield was the attending physician during the second admission.
The hospital records, showing the treatment given and drugs administered, were offered in evidence. Defendant then inquired of Dr. Hairfield, if the jury should find plaintiff was injured and treated as shown by the records, would such treatment, in his opinion, produce unconsciousness or lack of memory by plaintiff. The witness said: 'It is sort of hard to answer that yes or no.' The court then said: 'You can answer it 'yes', and then qualify it.' Plaintiff objected. The objection was overruled. The witness answered: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ormond v. Crampton
...of the evidence. The exclusion of evidence is harmless when subsequently evidence of the same import is admitted. Branch v. Seitz, 262 N.C. 727, 138 S.E.2d 493 (1964). Even assuming it was error to exclude this evidence, which it is not here necessary to determine, it is felt that the proba......
-
Horne v. Trivette, 8121SC1023
...offered at trial or which contradicts evidence of the opposing party is insufficient to warrant granting a new trial. Branch v. Seitz, 262 N.C. 727, 138 S.E.2d 493 (1964). The changes in Russell's testimony in the deposition and at trial affect his credibility, and it was for the jury to de......
- State v. Phillips
-
Tubiolo v. Abundant Life Church, Inc., No. COA06-193 (N.C. App. 11/7/2006)
...to warrant granting a new trial." Horne v. Trivette, 58 N.C. App. 77, 82, 293 S.E.2d 290, 293 (1982); see also Branch v. Seitz, 262 N.C. 727, 729-30, 138 S.E.2d 493, 495 (1964) (holding that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discove......