Case Name: EMMETT FRANKLIN SCISM, JR. v. JOHNNY RAY HOLLAND and INTERSTATE EGG SERVICE, INC.
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1971-09-15
Citations: 12 N.C. App. 405
Docket Number: No. 7121SC485
Parties: EMMETT FRANKLIN SCISM, JR. v. JOHNNY RAY HOLLAND and INTERSTATE EGG SERVICE, INC.
Judges: Judges Brock and Graham concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
EMMETT FRANKLIN SCISM, JR. v. JOHNNY RAY HOLLAND and INTERSTATE EGG SERVICE, INC.
No. 7121SC485
(Filed 15 September 1971)
1. Appeal and Error § 45— assignment of error — abandonment
An assignment of error for which no reason is stated or authority cited will be deemed abandoned. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 28.
2. Appeal and Error § 31— exceptions to the charge — issue not reached by the jury
Exceptions to the charge on an issue not reached by the jury are moot.
Appeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, Judge, 25 January 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.
This action for personal injuries was instituted as a result of an accident which occurred on Interstate 40 in the City of Winston-Salem. The first issue “Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendants as alleged in the complaint?” was answered “No.” Plaintiff appealed.
Edwin T. Pullen and George E. Clayton, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.
Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton and Robinson by W. F. Maready for defendant appellees.

Opinion:
VAUGHN, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the trial judge failed to correctly instruct the jury on the burden of proof. No reason is stated and no authority is cited to support this assignment of error and, under the rules of this Court, it will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The remainder of the plaintiff's assignments of error all relate to the court's instructions on the issue of contributory negligence which was not reached by the jury. The exceptions to the charge on this issue are, therefore, moot. Williams v. Cody, 236 N.C. 425, 72 S.E. 2d 867; Williams v. Stores Co., Inc., 209 N.C. 591, 184 S.E. 496. We have, however, reviewed the entire charge of the able trial judge and no prejudicial error appears therein.
To answer the first issue the jury had to consider whether negligence of the defendants proximately caused the collision and, if so, whether the plaintiff was injured as a result of the collision. The evidence in this case was such that the jury may well not have been satisfied by the evidence and the greater weight thereof that either occurred. Dotson v. Chemical Corp., 278 N.C. 677, 180 S.E. 2d 859.
No error.
Judges Brock and Graham concur.