A joint venture is “ ‘an association of persons with intent, by contract express or implied, to engage in and carry out a single business adventure for joint profit, for which purpose they combine their efforts, property, money, skill and knowledge, but without creating a partnership in the legal or technical sense of the term.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- A joint venture is “ ‘an association of persons with intent, by contract express or implied, to engage in and carry out a single business adventure for joint profit, for which purpose they combine their efforts, property, money, skill and knowledge, but without creating a partnership in the legal or technical sense of the term.’ ”
- "when an offer of evidence is made, some of which is admissible and some of which is inadmissible, it is not the responsibility of the trial judge to separate the admissible from the inadmissible evidence, and in the absence of an appropriately-limited offer by the proponent of the evidence, the trial judge's ruling excluding the evidence will be upheld on appeal"
- excluding expert opinion based solely on opinion of another non-treating physician
- "statements by one treating physician to another are inherently reliable"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Martin
concurring.
I concur in the result reached. Had the case been tried under the new North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Chapter 8C of the General Statutes of North Carolina, I would find the challenged evidence to be admissible.