No. 7227DC346
(Filed 26 April 1972)
Automobiles § 50— sufficiency of evidence for jury
Plaintiff’s action and defendant’s counterclaim for damages arising out of an automobile accident should have been submitted to the jury.
Appeal by plaintiff and defendant from BulwinMe, District Court Judge, 10 February 1972 Session of District Court held in Gaston County.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages arising out of an automobile accident with defendant. Defendant counterclaimed for damages sustained by him. Both parties presented evidence. At the conclusion of all the evidence the court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict against plaintiff and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict against defendant on his counterclaim. Both plaintiff and defendant appealed.
*287 Basil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff.
Hollowell, Stott and Hollowell by Grady B. Stott for defendant.
VAUGHN, Judge.
A recital of the evidence presented in this case could serve no useful purpose. There was evidence which would have permitted but not required a finding of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. There was evidence which would have permitted but not required a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. The case was one for the jury.
On Plaintiff’s appeal the judgment is reversed.
On Defendant’s appeal the judgment is reversed.
Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.