Arthur v. Henry
| Decision Date | 20 December 1911 |
| Citation | 157 N.C. 438,73 S.E. 211 |
| Parties | ARTHUR. v. HENRY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Damages (§ 52*)—Trial—Physical Injury.
One may not recover damages for fright unaccompanied by physical injury; but, where one is frightened to such an extent that he suffers physical pain and is made sick, the wrongdoer is liable provided the fright brought about by his negligence was the proximate cause.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. § 100; Dec. Dig. § 52.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Webb, Judge.
Action by Fanny V. Arthur against P. S. Henry. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
James H. Merrimon and James G. Merrimon, for appellant.
Locke Craig, Martin & Wright, and Jones & Williams, for appellee.
The evidence in this case and the questions presented are practically identical with those in the case of John P. Arthur v. Henry, 73 S. E. 206, at this term, except in that case the plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for injury to his property, compensatory and punitive, while in this theplaintiff, who is a sister of John P. Arthur and lived in the house with him, sues to recover damages for injury to her health. In this action punitive damages were not awarded.
There was evidence which, if accepted by the jury, established the fact that the plaintiff was made sick and suffered in body and mind, as the result of the operations of the defendant and of the Faragher Company, for whose acts the defendant was liable, and his honor was careful to exclude the idea that the plaintiff could recover for fright unaccompanied by physical injury. He said to the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A.
...language similar to that which it has determined goes against "the overwhelming weight of this Court's opinions." In Arthur v. Henry, 157 N.C. 438, 73 S.E. 211 (1911), this Court stated that a plaintiff could recover for emotional distress if the jury found that "she was put in fear and fri......
-
Dickens v. Puryear
...further, 210 N.C. at 812, 813, 188 S.E. at 627-28: "It is no doubt correct to say that fright alone is not actionable, Arthur v. Henry, (157 N.C. 438, 73 S.E. 211) supra, but it is faulty pathology to assume that nervous disorders of serious proportions may not flow from fear or fright. Hic......
-
Hanford v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Company
...any actual impact may be recoverable in an action for negligence if physical injury has been caused to the plaintiff." In Arthur v. Henry, 157 N.C. 438, 73 S.E. 211, following instruction was approved: "Mere fright is not actionable. Because a man or woman gets frightened at something, it i......
-
Hanford v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co.
...any actual impact may be recoverable in an action for negligence if physical injury has been caused to the plaintiff.” In Arthur v. Henry, 157 N. C. 438, 73 S. E. 211, the following instruction was approved: “Mere fright is not actionable. Because a man or woman gets frightened at something......