Allen Ex Rel. Holderby v. Edna Cotton Mill, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Allen Ex Rel. Holderby v. Edna Cotton Mill, Inc.

150 S.E. 667, 198 N.C. 39, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 400

DecidedDecember 4, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 667 (Allen Ex Rel. Holderby v. Edna Cotton Mill, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen Ex Rel. Holderby v. Edna Cotton Mill, Inc., 150 S.E. 667, 198 N.C. 39, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 400 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BeogdbN, J".

The elements of negligence involved were the presence of powder and grease upon the floor where the operator of the machine was required to stand in the performance of his duty and in failing to give plaintiff proper instructions for handling the machine.

The judge charged the jury as follows: “The plaintiff contends .that he was a minor seventeen years of age at the time of his injury and that the *41 defendant was negligent in failing to give Mm proper warning and instructions as to the method and manner of performing his work, and such failure on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of his injury. If you find from the evidence and by its greater weight, the burden being on the plaintiff, that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to give reasonable and proper instructions to the plaintiff, and that such failure was the proximate cause of his injury, you should answer the first issue, Yes; if you do not so find, it would be your duty to answer it, No.”

This instruction ignores other elements of negligence disclosed by the evidence offered by the plaintiff. It is true that in other portions of the charge the rule of liability was correctly declared, but the foregoing instruction was the statement of an independent and positive rule of law. In such instances, if the charge complained of was erroneous and prejudicial, this Court has held that the principle of contextual interpretation of the charge does not avail. Patterson v. Nichols, 157 N. C., 406, 73 S. E., 202; Champion v. Daniel, 170 N. C., 331, 87 S. E., 214; Construction Co. v. Wright, 189 N. C., 456, 127 S. E., 580; Hall v. Rhinehart, 191 N. C., 685, 132 S. E., 787; McCall v. Lumber Co., 196 N. C., 597, 146 S. E., 579.

There are many other exceptions noted in the record, but as the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial for the error specified, we deem it unnecessary and inadvisable to discuss them.

New trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BeogdbN, J".

The elements of negligence involved were the presence of powder and grease upon the floor where the operator of the machine was required to stand in the performance of his duty and in failing to give plaintiff proper instructions for handling the machine.

The judge charged the jury as follows: “The plaintiff contends .that he was a minor seventeen years of age at the time of his injury and that the *41 defendant was negligent in failing to give Mm proper warning and instructions as to the method and manner of performing his work, and such failure on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of his injury. If you find from the evidence and by its greater weight, the burden being on the plaintiff, that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to give reasonable and proper instructions to the plaintiff, and that such failure was the proximate cause of his injury, you should answer the first issue, Yes; if you do not so find, it would be your duty to answer it, No.”

This instruction ignores other elements of negligence disclosed by the evidence offered by the plaintiff. It is true that in other portions of the charge the rule of liability was correctly declared, but the foregoing instruction was the statement of an independent and positive rule of law. In such instances, if the charge complained of was erroneous and prejudicial, this Court has held that the principle of contextual interpretation of the charge does not avail. Patterson v. Nichols, 157 N. C., 406, 73 S. E., 202; Champion v. Daniel, 170 N. C., 331, 87 S. E., 214; Construction Co. v. Wright, 189 N. C., 456, 127 S. E., 580; Hall v. Rhinehart, 191 N. C., 685, 132 S. E., 787; McCall v. Lumber Co., 196 N. C., 597, 146 S. E., 579.

There are many other exceptions noted in the record, but as the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial for the error specified, we deem it unnecessary and inadvisable to discuss them.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 667, 198 N.C. 39, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-ex-rel-holderby-v-edna-cotton-mill-inc-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack