Page 376 |
Previous | 376 of 831 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
348 COURT OF APPEALS PI
p~ ~
Nolan v. Boulware
the insurance company's counsel during his jury argument to explain
the position of his client in the cases, and counsel's statements did
not have the effect of calling the jury's attention to possible liability
insurance coverage for the defendant owner.
5. Trial § 45- acceptance of verdict after hesitation expressed by juror
The trial court did not err in accepting the verdict after one
juror expressed some hesitation about the verdict on one issue during
a poll of the jury where the juror's final statement clearly signified
his assent to the verdict as rendered and nothing suggests that he was
unduly influenced either by his fellow jurors or by the court.
APPEAL by defendant, Georgia Boulware, from Hughes,
District Judge, 16 January 1973 Session of District Court held
in DAVIDSONC ounty.
These civil actions arise from a two-car collision which
occurred on 6 May 1970. Charlie C. Nolan, Sr., was the owner
and his wife, Eliza McLaurin Nolan, was the driver of one of
the cars. Georgia Boulware was the owner and Emmitt Russell
Moxley was the driver of the other car. In one action Charlie
C. Nolan, Sr. seeks recovery for damages to his automobile and
in the other his wife seeks recovery for her personal injuries.
The two cases were consolidated for trial and all questions pre-sented
on this appeal are common to both.
Plaintiffs brought their actions initially against the origi-nal
defendants only, alleging in their complaints that defendant
Moxley operated defendant Boulware's automobile in a negligent
manner in certain specified respects. The complaints contained
no allegations as to family purpose, master and servant, or
agency. In paragraphs 7 of the complaints, plaintiffs alleged that
the negligent acts and omissions of the defendant Moxley,
"which is (sic) imputed to the defendant Boulware," were the
sole proximate cause of the damage and injuries sustained by
the plaintiffs. Defendant Boulware answered and admitted
ownership of her car, but alleged that "someone, without her
knowledge, consent or permission, unlawfully took the auto-mobile
and wrecked it at some place and time unknown to her."
She denied paragraphs 7 of the complaints and denied knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
material allegations of the complaints.
Summons was personally served on defendant Moxley, but
he failed to answer or otherwise plead in apt time. These facts
being shown by affidavit, on 17 August 1971, default was en-tered
against him. Thereafter on plaintiffs' motions, Lumber-
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.021, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 21, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 1974. Cited as 21 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 31.9 MB; 832 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_021.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 376 |
| Full Text | 348 COURT OF APPEALS PI p~ ~ Nolan v. Boulware the insurance company's counsel during his jury argument to explain the position of his client in the cases, and counsel's statements did not have the effect of calling the jury's attention to possible liability insurance coverage for the defendant owner. 5. Trial § 45- acceptance of verdict after hesitation expressed by juror The trial court did not err in accepting the verdict after one juror expressed some hesitation about the verdict on one issue during a poll of the jury where the juror's final statement clearly signified his assent to the verdict as rendered and nothing suggests that he was unduly influenced either by his fellow jurors or by the court. APPEAL by defendant, Georgia Boulware, from Hughes, District Judge, 16 January 1973 Session of District Court held in DAVIDSONC ounty. These civil actions arise from a two-car collision which occurred on 6 May 1970. Charlie C. Nolan, Sr., was the owner and his wife, Eliza McLaurin Nolan, was the driver of one of the cars. Georgia Boulware was the owner and Emmitt Russell Moxley was the driver of the other car. In one action Charlie C. Nolan, Sr. seeks recovery for damages to his automobile and in the other his wife seeks recovery for her personal injuries. The two cases were consolidated for trial and all questions pre-sented on this appeal are common to both. Plaintiffs brought their actions initially against the origi-nal defendants only, alleging in their complaints that defendant Moxley operated defendant Boulware's automobile in a negligent manner in certain specified respects. The complaints contained no allegations as to family purpose, master and servant, or agency. In paragraphs 7 of the complaints, plaintiffs alleged that the negligent acts and omissions of the defendant Moxley, "which is (sic) imputed to the defendant Boulware" were the sole proximate cause of the damage and injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. Defendant Boulware answered and admitted ownership of her car, but alleged that "someone, without her knowledge, consent or permission, unlawfully took the auto-mobile and wrecked it at some place and time unknown to her." She denied paragraphs 7 of the complaints and denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining material allegations of the complaints. Summons was personally served on defendant Moxley, but he failed to answer or otherwise plead in apt time. These facts being shown by affidavit, on 17 August 1971, default was en-tered against him. Thereafter on plaintiffs' motions, Lumber- |
