Absher v. City of Raleigh

190 S.E. 897, 211 N.C. 567, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 152

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: April 28, 1937
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

The evidence on the issue of contributory negligence is not all one way. It is sufficiently equivocal and contradictory to require its submission to the jury. Doyle v. Charlotte, 210 N. C., 709; Williams v. Bus Co., ibid., 400, 186 S. E., 482; Oldham v. R. R., ibid., 642. Compare Casque v. Asheville, 207 N. C., 821, 178 S. E., 848. “A serious and troublesome question is continually arising as to bow far a court will declare certain conduct of a defendant negligence and certain conduct of a plaintiff contributory negligence and take away tbe question of negligence and contributory negligence from tbe jury. Tbe right of trial by jury should be carefully preserved, and if there is any evidence, more than a scintilla, it is a matter for tbe jury and not tbe court”- — Clarkson, J., in Moseley v. R. R., 197 N. C., 628, 150 S. E., 184.

The plaintiff’s negligence, in order to bar a recovery, need not be the sole or exclusive proximate cause of the injury, for this would exclude any idea of negligence on the part of the defendant. Mangum v. Winstead, 202 N. C., 252, 162 S. E., 557; Smith v. R. R., 200 N. C., 177, 156 S. E., 508; Davis v. Jeffreys, 197 N. C., 712, 150 S. E., 488; Lunsford v. Mfg. Co., 196 N. C., 510, 146 S. E., 129. It is enough if it contribute to the injury. Wright v. Grocery Co., 210 N. C., 462, 187 S. E., 564; Const. Co. v. R. R., 184 N. C., 179, 113 S. E., 672. the very term “contributory negligence” ex vi termini implies that it need not be the sole cause of the injury. Fulcher v. Lbr. Co., 191 N. C., 408, 132 S. E., 9. Plaintiff may not recover when bis negligence concurs with that of the defendant in proximately producing the injury. Wright v. Grocery Co., supra, and cases there cited.

There are other exceptions appearing on the record worthy of consideration, especially those addressed to the demonstrative testimony of plaintiff’s physician, which is in excess of the matters considered in Fleming v. Holleman, 190 N. C., 449, 130 S. E., 171, and is disapproved elsewhere, 26 R. C. L., 1019; Peters v. Hockley, 152 Ore., 434, 53 Pac. (2d), 1059, but as they are not likely to arise on another bearing, present rulings thereon, which could only be anticipatory, and perhaps supererogatory, are pretermitted. Pemberton v. Greensboro, 208 N. C., 466, 181 S. E., 258.

New trial.