Case Name: SANDRA PARNELL, by her Next Friend, EUGENE C. SEDBERRY, v. E. L. WILSON, MARSHALL WILSON and HAROLD BULL
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1960-05-04
Citations: 252 N.C. 486
Docket Number: 
Parties: SANDRA PARNELL, by her Next Friend, EUGENE C. SEDBERRY, v. E. L. WILSON, MARSHALL WILSON and HAROLD BULL.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 252
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
SANDRA PARNELL, by her Next Friend, EUGENE C. SEDBERRY, v. E. L. WILSON, MARSHALL WILSON and HAROLD BULL.
(Filed 4 May, 1960.)
Appeal by defendants from Crissman, J., November 1959 Term, of Guileoed (High Point Division).
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff because of the joint and concurring negligence of defendants.
Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and being driven by defendant Bull northwardly along North Carolina Highway 68 in Guilford County. This automobile met and collided with a car being driven by defendant Marshall Wilson and owned by his father, E. L. Wilson. The collision occurred about 11:00 P. M. on 2 November 1957 near Carroll's Store. The cars met and collided about the center of the paved highway. Plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was injured because of the joint and concurrent negligence of the drivers for that both were driving at speeds greater than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, failed to pass to the right and yield one-half of the main traveled portion of the highway, drove to the left of the double yellow line on a curve, drove to the left of the center of the highway, failed to keep a reasonable lookout, and failed to keep their vehicles under proper control. It was further alleged that the defendant Bull attempted to make a left turn without giving a signal and without ascertaining he could make the turn in safety, and that defendant Wilson was driving in excess of the maximum speed allowed by law and was under the influence of intoxicants.
Each defendant, answering, denied the allegations of negligence and alleged that the other suddenly turned to the left, created an emergency, and caused the collision.
The jury verdict declared that plaintiff was injured by the joint and concurrent negligence of the defendants and awarded damages in the amount of $10,000.00.
From judgment in accordance with the verdict defendants appealed.
Schoch & Schoch and Sedberry, Sanders ■& Walker for 'plaintiff.
Martin ■& Whitley for defendants E. L. Wilson and Marshall Wilson.
Deal, Hutchins and Minor for defendant Harold Bull.

Opinion:
Per Ctjeiam.
There was evidence supporting the allegations of joint and concurrent negligence proximately causing plaintiff's injuries. The weight of the evidence was for the jury. The exceptions of defendant Bull to the exclusion of evidence and the rulings of the court with reference to arguments of counsel are not sustained. If erroneous in any respect, they were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The charge of the court, when considered contextually, adequately presented the law applicable to the factual situations disclosed by the evidence. The burden is on the defendants to show prejudicial error. Taylor Co. v. Highway Commission, 250 N.C. 533, 539, 109 S.E. 2d 243.
In the trial below we find No error.