Legal Opinion

Scher v. Antonucci

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 19, 1985No. 8526SC324PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Plaintiff contends the court erred by failing to instruct that following too closely is a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-152(a) and is negligence per se. We agree.

The trial court has a “duty ... to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.” Board of Transportation v. Rand, 299 N.C. 476, 483, 263 S.E. 2d 565, 570 (1980); see also G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a); Investment Properties v. Norburn, 281 N.C. 191, 197, 188 S.E. 2d 342, 346 (1972). The failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error and entitles the aggrieved party to a new trial.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. NorburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Daughtry v. TurnageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Smith v. RawlinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. North Carolina Board of Transportation v. RandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Burnett v. CorbettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bare v. BarringtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Garrett v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API