Hubbel v. Talbot Furniture Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hubbel v. Talbot Furniture Co.

8 S.E.2d 601, 217 N.C. 518, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 279

DecidedMay 1, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 8 S.E.2d 601 (Hubbel v. Talbot Furniture 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

Hubbel v. Talbot Furniture Co., 8 S.E.2d 601, 217 N.C. 518, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 279 (N.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been negligently inflicted by the defendant.

The allegations of the complaint are to the effect that the defendant left a washing machine at the home of the plaintiff for the purpose of making a sale thereof, and that while the salesman of the defendant was demonstrating said machine in an endeavor to correct some difficulty which the plaintiff had had in the operation thereof, he turned the electric current on the machine while plaintiff’s hand was known to be in close proximity thereto, without giving her any warning, thereby causing the machinery to be put in motion and to catch the hand of the plaintiff therein, to her injury.

When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case the defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567, which motion was denied, and defendant reserved exception.

The jury answered the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment predicated upon the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning error.

The only assignment of error set out in the appellant’s brief is to the denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. *519 Since tbe evidence, wben taken in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, supports tbe allegations of tbe complaint, tbis exception cannot be sustained, and tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court must be affirmed.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been negligently inflicted by the defendant.

The allegations of the complaint are to the effect that the defendant left a washing machine at the home of the plaintiff for the purpose of making a sale thereof, and that while the salesman of the defendant was demonstrating said machine in an endeavor to correct some difficulty which the plaintiff had had in the operation thereof, he turned the electric current on the machine while plaintiff’s hand was known to be in close proximity thereto, without giving her any warning, thereby causing the machinery to be put in motion and to catch the hand of the plaintiff therein, to her injury.

When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case the defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567, which motion was denied, and defendant reserved exception.

The jury answered the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment predicated upon the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning error.

The only assignment of error set out in the appellant’s brief is to the denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. *519 Since tbe evidence, wben taken in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, supports tbe allegations of tbe complaint, tbis exception cannot be sustained, and tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court must be affirmed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E.2d 601, 217 N.C. 518, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbel-v-talbot-furniture-co-nc-1940.