Hicks v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hicks v. Southern Railway Co.

127 S.E. 552, 189 N.C. 548, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 352

DecidedApril 22, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 552 (Hicks v. Southern Railway 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

Hicks v. Southern Railway Co., 127 S.E. 552, 189 N.C. 548, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 352 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

Defendant relies entirely upon its demurrer to tbe evidence, interposed first at tbe close of plaintiff's evidence, by motion to dismiss tbe action or for judgment as of nonsuit, and renewed by like motion at tbe close of all tbe evidence. C. S., 567.

Viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink ,the trial court was justified in submitting the case to the jury and that the verdict is amply supported thereby. It is the settled rule of practice in tbis jurisdiction that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff's claim and which tends to support bis cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant’s witnesses, is to be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the *549 plaintiff, and be is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Nash v. Royster, ante, 408.

No benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe only question before us is wbetber it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we think it is.

Tbe plaintiff being in tbe employ of a common carrier by railroad, and having brought bis action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, received while in tbe discharge of bis duties as such employee, is not barred of bis right to recover by reason of bis own contributory negligence, but such negligence is to be taken in consideration by tbe jury in diminishing tbe damages which be otherwise would have been entitled to have awarded. The rule applicable is stated in Cobia v. R. R., 188 N. C., p. 496.

Tbe evidence was conflicting on tbe main issue of liability; tbe jury has determined tbe matter against tbe defendant; there is no reversible error appearing on tbe record; tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Pee Cubiam.

Defendant relies entirely upon its demurrer to tbe evidence, interposed first at tbe close of plaintiff's evidence, by motion to dismiss tbe action or for judgment as of nonsuit, and renewed by like motion at tbe close of all tbe evidence. C. S., 567.

Viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink ,the trial court was justified in submitting the case to the jury and that the verdict is amply supported thereby. It is the settled rule of practice in tbis jurisdiction that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff's claim and which tends to support bis cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant’s witnesses, is to be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the *549 plaintiff, and be is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Nash v. Royster, ante, 408.

No benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe only question before us is wbetber it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we think it is.

Tbe plaintiff being in tbe employ of a common carrier by railroad, and having brought bis action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, received while in tbe discharge of bis duties as such employee, is not barred of bis right to recover by reason of bis own contributory negligence, but such negligence is to be taken in consideration by tbe jury in diminishing tbe damages which be otherwise would have been entitled to have awarded. The rule applicable is stated in Cobia v. R. R., 188 N. C., p. 496.

Tbe evidence was conflicting on tbe main issue of liability; tbe jury has determined tbe matter against tbe defendant; there is no reversible error appearing on tbe record; tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 552, 189 N.C. 548, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-southern-railway-co-nc-1925.