Beck v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 307 N.C. 267 (1982)

Dec. 7, 1982 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · No. 398A82

307 N.C. 267

SHEILA LOCKLEAR BECK, Administratrix of the Estate of Daryl Ivan Beck, Deceased v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

No. 398A82

(Filed 7 December 1982)

Appeal and Error § 64— evenly divided court — decision affirmed — no precedent

Where one member of the Supreme Court did not participate in the consideration or decision of a case and the remaining six Justices are equally divided, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Justice Martin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendant pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) and Rule 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 57 N.C. App. 373, 291 S.E. 2d 897 (1982), which found no error in trial before Godwin, Judge, at the 17 February 1981 Session of WAKE Superior Court.

Thorp, Anderson, Slifkin, Roten & Clayton, P.A., by Anne R. Slifkin and William L. Thorp; Locklear, Brooks & Jacobs by Dexter Brooks, Attorneys for plaintiff appellee.

Fred D. Poisson; Manning, Fulton & Skinner by Howard E. Manning and Michael T. Medford, Attorneys for defendant appellant.

Harris, Bumgardner and Carpenter by Seth H. Langson, Attorneys for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.

Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray, by John G. Golding; Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston, by Irvin W. Hankins, III, Attorneys for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are fully stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals. Judge (now Justice) Harry C. Martin participated in the decision of this case as a member of the Court of Appeals and therefore took no part in the consideration or decision of the appeal before this Court. The remaining members of this Court were equally divided, three members voting to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and three members voting to reverse. Therefore the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed as the law of the case but stands without precedential value.

Affirmed.

Justice MARTIN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.