Teachey v. Woolard
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MOEEIS, Judge.
Defendant’s assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 all relate to the question of damages. Defendant contends that the plaintiff has introduced no evidence establishing a causal connection between her injury sustained in the collision of 15 October 1970 and the need for certain medical treatments, and therefore the admission of testimony concerning those treatments and the expenses incurred was error.
In question are certain chiropractic treatments that plaintiff received from 13 January 1972 until the time of trial, visits to three medical doctors starting in February of 1971…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Maness v. Fowler-Jones Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Correll v. GaskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Grant v. ShadrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Donivant v. . SwaimSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
3Cited by11 opinions
- Currence v. HardinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Beale v. SpeckIdaho Court of Appeals · 1995
- Oliver Ex Rel. Oliver v. RoyallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Connor v. Royal Globe Insur. Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Mitchem v. SimsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.