Emery B. Denny

This case involves a motor vehicle collision in which the plaintiff's truck was stopped on an icy highway, raising issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. Following a jury trial, the plaintiff appealed, assigning error to the submission of the contributory negligence issue and to portions of the jury charge. The court determined that the trial judge's instructions were inadequate, as they consisted largely of the parties' contentions without declaring and explaining the applicable law to the evidence as required by G.S. 1-180. The court further held that negligence must be assessed under statutory or common law standards rather than Highway Patrol criteria. The court therefore ordered a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by the parents of a young child who died after falling into the pit of an outdoor privy on the defendants' property while trespassing. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the complaint, and the appeals court affirmed that ruling while allowing the plaintiff to amend. The court reasoned that an ordinary privy is not an attractive nuisance or inherently dangerous instrumentality, the defendants had no duty to anticipate that a child of tender years would trespass and fall into the pit without allegations showing they knew of any hazardous condition like accumulated water, and liability for injuries to child trespassers requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known children were likely to be present and exposed to danger. The court further noted that common dangers are the responsibility of parents to guard against and that the allegations did not establish foreseeable risk or a violation creating liability.

torts & liability

This case concerns a challenge to a deed executed by Elva P. Hammond on September 5, 1962, brought by her next friend against the Bullards, alleging that Hammond lacked mental capacity and that the deed was procured through fraud and undue influence. The defendants appealed the denial of their motions for nonsuit and raised issues regarding the qualification of lay witnesses to opine on mental capacity and an alleged error in the jury instructions. The court affirmed the judgment below, reasoning that an action by a next friend was permissible, the evidence was sufficient for the jury, the witnesses had adequate observation opportunities, and any instructional error was technical and harmless because the jury was properly instructed on the ultimate issue and not misled. The jury's findings of mental incompetence and fraud distinguished the case from precedents like Davis v. Davis.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a prosecution for subornation of perjury, where the defendant was accused of inducing a witness to give false testimony in a prior trial concerning ownership of whiskey. The trial court convicted the defendant, but the Supreme Court reversed the judgment. The court reasoned that in perjury or subornation cases, the falsity of the testimony must be proven by two witnesses or one witness plus corroborating circumstances independent of the witness's own statements. Here, the additional evidence consisted only of officers recounting the witness's admissions of lying, which did not qualify as sufficient corroboration under established precedent. Therefore, the motion for nonsuit should have been granted.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a rear-end car collision in which the plaintiff sued the defendants for damages allegedly caused by their negligence. The trial judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff had suddenly stopped her car without any signal, but the evidence showed the plaintiff's car was already stopped and visible for more than a mile when first seen by the defendants. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that submitting material facts to the jury that were not supported by any evidence constituted prejudicial error, and therefore granted the plaintiff a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with lottery-related offenses who moved to suppress evidence of purported lottery tickets seized under a search warrant, arguing the warrant was invalidly issued. The trial court denied the motion after hearing testimony, including from the assistant clerk who issued the warrant, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that ruling. The court found the warrant illegal because the assistant clerk failed to require a sworn affidavit or examine the complainant as mandated by G.S. 15-27, relying instead on her testimony that she merely witnessed signatures without understanding her statutory duties. Although the improperly obtained evidence should have been suppressed, the court ordered a new trial rather than dismissal, noting the State might have other admissible evidence to support the charges.

criminal lawprocedure