Coppley v. Carter
| Decision Date | 24 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 7122SC161,7122SC161 |
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 118,10 N.C.App. 512 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Robert L. COPPLEY, Administrator of G. F. Coppley, Deceased v. Miles Millard CARTER, Jr. |
Stoner, Stoner & Bowers, by Bob Bowers, Lexington, for plaintiff appellant.
Walser, Brinkley, Walser & McGirt, by Charles H. McGirt, Lexington, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff's first assignment of error is directed to the denial of his motion to strike the testimony of the defendant regarding the reasonableness of the defendant's speed at the time he was attempting to pass, for that it was not responsive. This assignment of error is without merit as the record shows that the testimony was elicited by the plaintiff during cross examination and came as a result of argument with the witness by the plaintiff and hence the unresponsiveness. Moreover, there is no showing of prejudice as the jury answered the issue of defendant's negligence in favor of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff next assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to grant plaintiff's motion for judgment Non obstante veredicto or in the alternative a new trial. Upon a motion for judgment Non obstante veredicto under G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 50(b)(1), the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the jury based its verdict is drawn into question. All of the evidence which supports defendant's claim must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to defendant, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, and with contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies being resolved in defendant's favor. Horton v. Iows Mutual Insurance Co., 9 N.C.App. 140, 175 S.E.2d 725 (1970), Musgrave v. Mutual Savings & Loan Assoc., 8 N.C.App. 385, 174 S.E.2d 820 (1970).
Here, the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Defendant's testimony to the effect that the approximate distance from the intersection of Rural Paved Road No. 1551 to the scene of the collision was 75 to 100 feet is not an 'indisputable physical fact' that will negate defendant's other testimony that he did not begin passing until after he passed the intersection. This testimony is not sufficient to justify taking the case from the jury. It was only an estimation on the part of the defendant and insofar as it creates a conflict in his testimony, it must be resolved in his favor in passing on a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
...the sound discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Coppley v. Carter, 10 N.C.App. 512, 179 S.E.2d 118 (1971). Defendant claims entitlement to a new trial on the ground of errors of law fully reviewable by this Defendant first conten......
-
Smith v. Pass
...the discretion of the trial judge and his ruling will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Coppley v. Carter, 10 N.C.App. 512, 179 S.E.2d 118 (1971). In addition to her allegations of common law negligence, Smith alleged Piedmont/Marshall violated G.S. 20-161(a) and ......
-
Wentz v. Unifi, Inc.
...tend to establish or suggest contributory negligence. Atkins v. Moye, 277 N.C. 179, 176 S.E.2d 789 (1970); Coppley v. Carter, 10 N.C.App. 512, 179 S.E.2d 118 (1971). In the case before us, the evidence presented the question of whether defendant Blevins actually caused plaintiff to lose con......
-
Nytco Leasing, Inc. v. Southeastern Motels, Inc.
...drawn therefrom, with contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies being resolved in plaintiff's favor. Coppley v. Carter, 10 N.C.App. 512, 179 S.E.2d 118 (1971). As stated above, the evidence was abundant to withstand the motion for directed verdict. Here, that same evidence is considered......