Case ID: nc_249/html/0046-01.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

MEARL N. TATUM v. EVELYN G. TIPPETT.
    (Filed 8 October, 1958.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., Schedule “B” Term, 10 March 1958, of MeCKlenbueg.
    Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile wreck on 30 July 1955.
    Some time during the afternoon of the 'above date the defendant drove her automobile to the homo of plaintiff on McClintock Road, in the City of Charlotte, for the purpose of visiting plaintiff. When she arrived, the plaintiff was in bed with a heating pad on her neck and shoulders; she was complaining about some aches. After visAting for some time, the plaintiff suggested that she must go to the grocery store. The defendant offered to .take her and they left in defendant’s car to go to the B & B Grocery on Central Avenue. The defendant was driving her car on McClintock Road where she was supposed to turn left into Iris Drive. The street was paved with asphalt and had loose rock and pebbles on it; it had been raining and the street was wet. According to plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant did not slow down, and almost passed the intersection when she said, “Oh, I was supposed to turn here,” and put on the brakes and the ear swung around completely to the right and the left side of the car hit a telephone pole on McClintock Road.
    The evidence is conflicting as to plaintiff’s injuries, especially as to whether or not her present condition was caused by injuries sustained in the automobile accident.
    The issues of negligence and damages were submitted to the jury, and the issue of negligence was answered in favor of the defendant.
    The plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
    
      McDougle, Ervin, Haracok & Snepp for plaintiff.
    
    
      Carpenter & Webb, John G. Golding for defendant.
    
   PeR Curiam.

We have carefully examined the plaintiff’s exceptions and assignments of error and, in our opinion, no prejudicial error that would justify a new trial has been made to appear.

In the trial below we find no error in law.

No Eiror.