Burton v. Croghan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Burton v. Croghan

144 S.E.2d 147, 265 N.C. 392, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 996

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 29, 1965

Docket205

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 147 (Burton v. Croghan) 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

Burton v. Croghan, 144 S.E.2d 147, 265 N.C. 392, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 996 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CüRIAm.

A careful examination of the judge’s charge reveals no error prejudicial to plaintiff. Indeed, the charge was more favorable to appellant than the law allows. The judge instructed the jury that the funeral bill of $895.00 was “an item to be taken into consideration” if it reached the issue of damages. G.S. 28-173 permits the amount recovered in an action for wrongful death to be applied to the payment of the burial expenses of the deceased, but the funeral bill itself is not an item of damages. G.S. 28-174; Davenport v. Patrick, 227 N.C. 686, 691, 44 S.E. 2d 203, 206. This error in the charge was, no doubt, prejudicial to defendants. They, however, have not complained, and plaintiff may not.

Except for the inclusion of the funeral bill, the judge instructed the jury, with reference to the measure of damages, in conformity with the well established rule applicable in wrongful-death actions. Bryant v. Woodlief, 252 N.C. 488, 114 S.E. 2d 241; Caudle v. R. R., 242 N.C. 466, 88 S.E. 2d 138. The measure of damages for the death of a child is the *393 same as for an adult, notwithstanding the difficulty of applying the rule “is greatly increased in the case of an infant.” Rea v. Simowitz, 226 N.C. 379, 382, 38 S.E. 2d 194, 196; Russell v. Steamboat Co., 126 N.C. 961, 967, 36 S.E. 191, 192.

No error.

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

Per CüRIAm.

A careful examination of the judge’s charge reveals no error prejudicial to plaintiff. Indeed, the charge was more favorable to appellant than the law allows. The judge instructed the jury that the funeral bill of $895.00 was “an item to be taken into consideration” if it reached the issue of damages. G.S. 28-173 permits the amount recovered in an action for wrongful death to be applied to the payment of the burial expenses of the deceased, but the funeral bill itself is not an item of damages. G.S. 28-174; Davenport v. Patrick, 227 N.C. 686, 691, 44 S.E. 2d 203, 206. This error in the charge was, no doubt, prejudicial to defendants. They, however, have not complained, and plaintiff may not.

Except for the inclusion of the funeral bill, the judge instructed the jury, with reference to the measure of damages, in conformity with the well established rule applicable in wrongful-death actions. Bryant v. Woodlief, 252 N.C. 488, 114 S.E. 2d 241; Caudle v. R. R., 242 N.C. 466, 88 S.E. 2d 138. The measure of damages for the death of a child is the *393 same as for an adult, notwithstanding the difficulty of applying the rule “is greatly increased in the case of an infant.” Rea v. Simowitz, 226 N.C. 379, 382, 38 S.E. 2d 194, 196; Russell v. Steamboat Co., 126 N.C. 961, 967, 36 S.E. 191, 192.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 147, 265 N.C. 392, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-croghan-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack