Case ID: nc_266/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANNIE MAE G. SMITH v. ADDIS PITTARD CATES.
    (Filed 9 March, 1966.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Cowper, J., December 1965 Session of DupliN.
    Action ex delicto to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of defendant in the operation of his automobile which struck plaintiff, a pedestrian.
    The defendant in his answer denied that he was negligent, and conditionally pleaded contributory negligence of plaintiff as a bar to any recovery by her.
    Plaintiff and defendant offered evidence, and the following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as appear:
    “1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?
    “Answer: No.
    “2. Did the plaintiff by her own negligence contribute to her injuries?
    “Answer: .
    “3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?
    “Answer: .”
    From a judgment upon the verdict that plaintiff recover nothing from defendant, and that, defendant recover the costs of the action from plaintiff, plaintiff appeals to the Supreme Court.
    
      George B. Kornegay, Jr. and Henson P. Barnes for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., for defendant appellee.
    
   Per Curiam.

The jury, under application of settled principles of law, found as its verdict that plaintiff was not injured by the negligence of defendant as alleged in the complaint. A careful examination of plaintiff’s assignments of error discloses no new question or matter requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Moobe, J., not sitting.