Bass v. Hocutt
| Decision Date | 29 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 526. |
| Citation | 19 S.E.2d 871,221 N.C. 218 |
| Parties | BASS v. HOCUTT et ux. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
New trial.
Civil action to recover for injuries allegedly resulting from actionable negligence.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 20, 1941, while crossing Tuckaseegee Road from east to west, where Enderly Road intersects therewith, under circumstances described, he, a minor six years of age, was struck by an automobile owned and used by defendant R. Hovan Hocutt for family purposes, and negligently operated by his wife, defendant Hattie Pearl Hocutt, traveling in southerly direction on Tuckaseegee Road in the manner specified,-- proximately resulting in injury to him.
Defendants deny the allegations of negligence and plead contributory negligence of plaintiff as the sole, or a contributing cause of his injury.
Upon the trial below the case was submitted to the jury upon issues as to negligence of defendant, contributory negligence of plaintiff, and damages.
From adverse verdict defendants appeal to Supreme Court, and assign error.
J. C Newell, of Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.
W. C Ginter and Robinson & Jones, all of Charlotte, for defendants-appellants.
Defendants upon trial below, in apt time, requested the court to charge the jury as follows:
We are of opinion that exception to the refusal to so charge is well taken. Michaux v. Paul Rubber Co., 190 N.C. 617, 130 S.E. 306; Calhoun v. State Highway, etc., Comm., 208 N.C. 424, 181 S.E. 271, and cases cited. Compare Newman v. Queen City Coach Co., 205 N.C. 26, 169 S.E. 808.
The established rule bearing upon the duty of the court with respect to request for instruction is succinctly stated in Calhoun v. State Highway, etc., Commission, supra [208 N.C. 424, 181 S.E. 272], in this manner: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Champion
...by the evidence, the failure of the court to give the instruction, at least in substance, is reversible error. Bass v. Hocutt, 221 N.C. 218, 19 S.E.2d 871 (1942); Calhoun v. Highway Com., 208 N.C. 424, 181 S.E. 271 (1935). It is also error for the trial court to refuse to submit to the jury......
-
BNT CO. v. Baker Precythe Development Co.
...413, 425, 380 S.E.2d 553, 561, disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 437, 384 S.E.2d 547 (1989) (emphasis added) (citing Bass v. Hocutt, 221 N.C. 218, 19 S.E.2d 871 (1942)). The instruction requested by defendant regarding "plaintiffs' fault or lack of care" is tantamount to a contributory negligen......
-
Noland Co., Inc. v. Poovey
...response to the prayer or otherwise in some portion of the charge, the failure will constitute reversible error. Bass v. Hocutt, 221 N.C. 218, 220, 19 S.E.2d 871, 872 (1942), quoted in Camby v. Railway Co., 48 N.C.App. 668, 673, 269 S.E.2d 719, 722, cert. denied, 301 N.C. 527, 273 S.E.2d 45......
-
Yokeley v. Kearns
... ... 793, ... 18 S.E.2d 406; Pack v. Auman, 220 N.C. 704, 18 ... S.E.2d 247, and Mills v. Moore, 219 N.C. 25, 12 ... S.E.2d 661. See also Bass v. Hocutt, 221 N.C. 218, ... 19 S.E.2d 871 ... As this ... case goes back for trial, we refrain from further discussion ... of ... ...