Little v. Martin Furniture Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Little v. Martin Furniture Co.

158 S.E. 490, 200 N.C. 731, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 426

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 490 (Little v. Martin 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

Little v. Martin Furniture Co., 158 S.E. 490, 200 N.C. 731, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 426 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff’s cause of action is supported by the decisions in Nance v. Phosphate Co., ante, 702; Masten v. Texas Co., 194 N. C., 540, 140 S. E., 89; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., 182 N. C., 489, 109 S. E., 376.

The defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which, in effect, is but a belated motion for judgment on the pleadings, was properly overruled on authority of Iron Works v. Beaman, 199 N. C., 537; Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N. C., 231, 141 S. E., 586; Shives v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 290, 66 S. E., 141.

The action of the court in refusing defendant’s request to limit plaintiff’s recovery to nominal damages accords with what was said in Finger v. Spinning Co., 190 N. C., 74, 128 S. E., 467; Cook v. Mebane, 191 N. C., 1, 131 S. E., 407; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., supra.

The fact that the stream in question may have been polluted from other sources, as well as from the defendant’s septic tank, neither defeats the plaintiff’s cause of action nor denies him the right to have the jury assess such damages as proximately flowed from the defendant’s wrong. Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421; 26 R. C. L., 764; Note, 9 A. L. R., 947. “To show that other causes concurred in producing or contributing to the result complained of is no defense to an action for negligence.” Harton v. Tel. Co., 141 N. C., 455, 54 S. E., 299. The defendant’s negligence, in order to render him liable, must be the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes, but it need not be the sole proximate cause, of the plaintiff’s injury. White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564.

The record discloses no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained, and, as the case involves only settled principles of law so far as the present record is concerned, the verdict arid judgment will be upheld, without further elaboration of the exceptions.

No error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff’s cause of action is supported by the decisions in Nance v. Phosphate Co., ante, 702; Masten v. Texas Co., 194 N. C., 540, 140 S. E., 89; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., 182 N. C., 489, 109 S. E., 376.

The defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which, in effect, is but a belated motion for judgment on the pleadings, was properly overruled on authority of Iron Works v. Beaman, 199 N. C., 537; Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N. C., 231, 141 S. E., 586; Shives v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 290, 66 S. E., 141.

The action of the court in refusing defendant’s request to limit plaintiff’s recovery to nominal damages accords with what was said in Finger v. Spinning Co., 190 N. C., 74, 128 S. E., 467; Cook v. Mebane, 191 N. C., 1, 131 S. E., 407; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., supra.

The fact that the stream in question may have been polluted from other sources, as well as from the defendant’s septic tank, neither defeats the plaintiff’s cause of action nor denies him the right to have the jury assess such damages as proximately flowed from the defendant’s wrong. Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421; 26 R. C. L., 764; Note, 9 A. L. R., 947. “To show that other causes concurred in producing or contributing to the result complained of is no defense to an action for negligence.” Harton v. Tel. Co., 141 N. C., 455, 54 S. E., 299. The defendant’s negligence, in order to render him liable, must be the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes, but it need not be the sole proximate cause, of the plaintiff’s injury. White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564.

The record discloses no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained, and, as the case involves only settled principles of law so far as the present record is concerned, the verdict arid judgment will be upheld, without further elaboration of the exceptions.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 490, 200 N.C. 731, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-martin-furniture-co-nc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack