Crowder v. Murray Construction Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Crowder v. Murray Construction Co.

135 S.E. 323, 192 N.C. 502, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 332

DecidedNovember 10, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 323 (Crowder v. Murray Construction Co.) 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

Crowder v. Murray Construction Co., 135 S.E. 323, 192 N.C. 502, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 332 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stact, C. J.

A perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the assignments of error, based on exceptions to the admission of evidence, are without substantial merit. We deem it unnecessary to discuss them, as they present no new question of law.

His Honor sustained an exception to the charge on the ground that the defendant was not definitely required to handle the laboring oar on the second issue, in that, the judge of the county court simply told the jury “if they were satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff, by his own negligence, proximately brought about his injury, they would answer the second issue Yes; otherwise No,” without saying whether the burden of proof, with respect to the issue of contributory negligence, was on the plaintiff or the defendant.

Without deciding whether there was error in the instruction as given, we think it is sufficient to say that, even if erroneous, the defendant is not in position to take advantage of it. The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence, and, if he were not *503 required to carry it, tbe plaintiff alone could complain, not tbe defendant. Fleming v. R. R., 160 N. C., 196.

We find no reversible error appearing on tbe record, bence tbe order remanding tbe cause for another bearing will be

Reversed.

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

Stact, C. J.

A perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the assignments of error, based on exceptions to the admission of evidence, are without substantial merit. We deem it unnecessary to discuss them, as they present no new question of law.

His Honor sustained an exception to the charge on the ground that the defendant was not definitely required to handle the laboring oar on the second issue, in that, the judge of the county court simply told the jury “if they were satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff, by his own negligence, proximately brought about his injury, they would answer the second issue Yes; otherwise No,” without saying whether the burden of proof, with respect to the issue of contributory negligence, was on the plaintiff or the defendant.

Without deciding whether there was error in the instruction as given, we think it is sufficient to say that, even if erroneous, the defendant is not in position to take advantage of it. The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence, and, if he were not *503 required to carry it, tbe plaintiff alone could complain, not tbe defendant. Fleming v. R. R., 160 N. C., 196.

We find no reversible error appearing on tbe record, bence tbe order remanding tbe cause for another bearing will be

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 323, 192 N.C. 502, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowder-v-murray-construction-co-nc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack