Case Name: ROGER FULLER, by His Next Friend, LAIL FULLER v. SHELBY E. BRIGHT
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1964-09-30
Citations: 262 N.C. 543
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROGER FULLER, by His Next Friend, LAIL FULLER v. SHELBY E. BRIGHT.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 262
Pages: 543–544

Head Matter:
ROGER FULLER, by His Next Friend, LAIL FULLER v. SHELBY E. BRIGHT.
(Filed 30 September, 1964.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Froneberger, J., April Regular Civil Session 1964 of Buncombe.
This is a civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff under the circumstances hereinafter set out.
On 14 June 1962 the plaintiff, Roger Fuller, who was then just over seven years of age, had come out of a church located on Church Road in Buncombe County, where he had been attending Bible School. A converted school bus, still painted the same color, was parked in front of the church on the shoulder of the road. This bus was being used to transport children to and from their homes to the Bible School. The driver of the bus, who was sitting in the driver’s seat in the bus at the time of the accident complained of, testified that there were children on both sides of the road; that the plaintiff ran in front of his bus and continued to run into the road until the impact with defendant’s car. The defendant’s ear approached the church bus from its rear.
Immediately before the accident the defendant was operating her car at a speed of approximately 30 miles an hour in a speed zone of 35 miles an hour. The defendant testified that when she saw the children in the church yard she slowed down to about 20 miles an hour; that she pulled her car to the left side of the road to pass the bus; that she did not see the little boy until he was right in front of her car. “I guess I hit him at about the time I saw him * *
The jury answered the negligence issue in the negative. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
John C. Cheesborough for plaintiff appellant.
Van Winkle, Walton, Buck & Wall by O. E. Starnes, Jr., for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
All the plaintiff's assignments of error are to the charge of the court or to the failure of the court to charge the jury in certain respects.
A careful review of the charge, however, when read contextually, leads us to the conclusion that sufficient prejudicial error has not been shown to justify a new trial.
No error.