Collas v. Regan Ex Rel. Regan

82 S.E.2d 215, 240 N.C. 472, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 440

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 4, 1954
• Docket: 754
• Status: Published

Opinion

Eevikt, J.

Counsel for tbe plaintiff concedes with bis customary candor that bis client’s pleadings do not invoke tbe last clear chance or discovered peril doctrine, and that in consequence bis client is not entitled to prevail on this appeal unless we overrule tbe decisions bolding that the last clear chance or discovered peril doctrine must be pleaded by a plaintiff in order to be available as a basis for recovery. Bailey v. R. R., 223 N.C. 244, 25 S.E. 2d 833; Hudson v. R. R., 190 N.C. 116, 129 S.E. 146. This we cannot do. These decisions are simply practical applications of tbe basic rule that a plaintiff can recover only on tbe case made by bis pleadings. The plaintiff’s legal plight would be no better, however, bad bis pleadings invoked tbe doctrine under discussion. This is true because there is no evidence indicating that tbe infant defendant might have averted tbe injury by using proper care after bis discovery of tbe plaintiff’s peril. Wade v. Sausage Co., 239 N.C. 524, 80 S.E. 2d 150.

No error.