Campbell v. Laundry

Citation130 S.E. 638
Decision Date09 December 1925
Docket Number(No. 460.)
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
PartiesCAMPBELL. v. MODEL STEAM LAUNDRY.

(190 N. C.)

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Lane, Judge.

Action by A. S. Campbell, administrator of Richard S. Sams, against the Model Steam Laundry. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Action by plaintiff to recover damage on account of wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

The evidence tended to show that August 22, 1924, the defendant's large electric delivery truck was parked on the left side of Brevard street, Charlotte, contrary to a parking ordinance, while its driver went into the house of A. S. Campbell to deliver a package of laundry. The driver approached this position "angling across the street." The truck was painted black and red in checkerboard style. When the driver was going into the Campbell house he saw the Sams child, plaintiff's intestate, coming down the steps. These are half-moon steps, and go from the ground to the second story. "It is about 6 feet from the foot of these stairs to the curbstone." This Sams child came right on down, and walked out of the gate to the side of the truck, and got up on its left front wheel, but on the left side. The control lever is located between the steering wheel and side of the body. The child climbed up on the left front wheel, leaned over the side of the body and got hold of the steering wheel, and then reached the lever and pushed it down, and the car started.

When the car started the child was on the left front wheel, and his feet were thrown out from under him, and he caught on the side. The car went southwardly down North Brevard street, "angling across the street." This indicated that the driver did not turn his wheels toward the curb when he stopped the truck. The driver was still in the house. A witness jumped on the truck in an effort to stop it, and the child fell off, and the truck ran over him injuring him so that he died in only 20 minutes.

There was evidence tending to show that if the truck had been parked to the right side of the curb the child could not have reached the steering apparatus from the right, or curb side, if standing on the right-hand wheel. None of these trucks have "controller and drive" on the right side. The wheel tread is 56 inches. The defendant had owned eight electric trucks of the same kind. The left side is boxed up, and the right side is not. It would be easy for a child to climb up into the truck from the right side. The switch plug on the truck is on the right side. The truck could not be moved by electric current if the switch plug is out; this big brass plug slips in, and makes the connection by which the electric current is turned on. The Sams child was strong and healthy, 4 years old, and accustomed to playing out on the sidewalk. If the switch plug is removed, the truck is practically dead. The car was left with the brakes loose, not set. The witness who stopped the car after the injury put on the brakes and stopped the car.

J. Laurence Jones and J. A. Lockhart, both of Charlotte, for appellant.

McCall, Smith & McCall, of Charlotte, for appellee.

VARSER, J. [1] There must, of necessity, be a period within which a child is incapable of exercising care to such a degree as may be otherwise legally applicable to the given situation. We are of the opinion that a child 4 years old is incapable of negligence, primary or contributory. 20 R. C. L. 124, par. 105; Shellaberger v. Fisher, 143 F. 937, 75 C. C. A. 9, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 250; Purtell v. Philadelphia Coal Co., 256 111. 110, 99 N. E. 899, 43 L, R. A. (N. S.) 193, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 335; South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418, 60 N. E. 271, 54 L. R. A. 396, 83 Am. St. Rep. 200; Schmitz v. St. Louis R. Co., 119 Mo. 256, 24 S. W. 472, 23 L. R. A. 250; Sou. R. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1026, 53 S. E. 692, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 283, 4 Ann. Cas. 675; Chicago City R. Co. v. Wilcox, 138 111. 370, 27 N. E. 899, 21 L. R. A. 76; Evansville v. Senhenn, 151 Ind. 42, 47 N. E. 634, 51 N. E. 88, 41 L. R. A. 728, 68 Am. St. Rep. 218; Barnes v. Shreveport City R. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1218, 17 So. 782, 49 Am. St. Rep. 400; Buechner v. New Orleans, 112 La. 599, 36 So. 603, 66 L. R. A. 334, 104 Am. St. Rep. 455; Twist v. Winona R. Co., 39 Minn. 164, 39 N. W. 402, 12 Am. St. Rep. 626; Pass Christian v. Fernandez, 100 Miss. 76, 56 So. 329; O'Flaherty v. Union R. Co., 45 Mo. 70, 100 Am. Dec. 343; Newman v. Phillips-burg Horse-Car R. Co., 52 N. J. Law, 446, 19 A. 1102, 8 L. R. A. 842; Mangam v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 38 N. Y. 455, 98 Am. Dec. 66; Bottoms v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., 114 N. C. 699, 19 S. E. 730, 25 L. R. A. 784, 41 Am. St. Rep. 799; Rolin v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C. 300, 53 S. E. 891, 8 Ann. Cas. 638, 7 L. R. A. (N. S. 335; Ruehl v. Rural Telephone Co., 23 N. D. 6, 135 N. W. 793, L. R. A. 1918C, 1063, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 680; Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. v. Corrigan, 46 Ohio St. 283, 20 N. E. 466, 3 L. R. A. 385; Kay v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 65 Pa. 269, 3 Am. Rep. 628; Summers v. Bergner Brewing Co., 143 Pa. 114, 22 A. 707, 24 Am. St. Rep. 518; Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 176 Pa. 376, 35 A. 140, 53 Am. St. Rep. 674; Tucker v. Buffalo Cotton Mills, 76 S. C. 539, 57 S. E. 626, 121 Am. St. Rep. 957; Gunn v. Ohio River R. Co., 42 W. Va. 676, 26 S. E. 546, 36 L. R. A. 575; Hemingway v. Chicago R. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 37 N. W. 804, 7 Am. St. Rep. 823.

This ruling is in accord with the decisions throughout this country, as indicated by the following: McDermott v. Severe, 202 U. S. 600, 26 S. Ct. 709, 50 L. Ed. 1162. In this case the court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff, a boy 6 years and 10 months old. The trial court instructed the jury that, since plaintiff was under 7 years of age, contributory negligence could not be attributed to him. Snare & Triest Co. v. Friedman, 169 F. 1, 94 C. C. A. 369, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 367; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Chervenak, 203 F. 884, 122 C. C. A. 178; Sheffield Co. v. Harris, 183 Ala. 357, 61 So. 88; St. Louis I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Denty, 63 Ark. 177, 37 S. W. 719; L. & N. R. Co. v. Arp, 136 Ga. 489, 71 S. E. 867; Anderson v. Great Northern R. Co., 15 Idaho, 513, 99 P. 91; Devine v. Chicago Ry. Co., 189 111. App. 435; U. S. Brewing Co. v. Stoltenberg, 211 111. 531, 71 N. E. 1081, Elwood Electric Co. v. Ross, 26 Ind. App. 258, 58 N. E. 535; Smith v. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co., 25 Kan. 738; 111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Dupree, 138 Ky. 459, 128 S. W. 334, 34 L. R. A (N. S.) 645; Palermo v. Orleans Ice Mfg. Co., 130 La. 833, 58 So. 589, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671; Morgan v. Aroostook Valley R. Co., 115 Me. 171, 98 A. 628; Marsland v. Murray, 148 Mass. 91, 18 N. E. 680, 12 Am. St. Rep. 520; Hoover v. Detroit R. Co., 188 Mich. 313, 154 N. W. 94; Berry v. Railroad., 214 Mo. 593, 114 S. W. 27; Dorr v. Atlantic Shore Line Ry. Co., 76 N. H. 160, 80 A. 336; Napurana v. Young, 74 N. J. Law, 627, 65 A. 1052; Bir-kett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 18 N. E. 108; Levine v. Railway, 78 App. Div. 426, 80 N. Y. S. 48, affirmed Id., 177 N. Y. 523, 69 N. E. 1125; MacDonald v. O'Reilly, 45 Or. 589, 78 P. 753; Counlzzarri v. Phila. & R. Ry. Co., 248 Pa. 474, 94 A. 134; Dodd v. Spartansburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 95 S. C. 9, 78 S. E. 525; Wise & Co. v. Morgan, 101 Tenn. 273, 48 S. W. 971, 44 L. R. A. 548; Ollis v. H., E. & W. T. Ry. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 601, 73 S. W. 30; Smalley v. Railroad, 34 Utah, 423, 98 P. 311; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718; American Tobacco Co. v. Polisco, 104 Va. 777, 52 S. E. 563; Eskildsen v. City of Seattle, 29 Wash. 583, 70 P. 64; Parrish v. City of Huntington, 57 W. Va. 286, 50 S. E. 416; Gibson v. City of Huntington, 38 W. Va. 177, 18 S. E. 447, 22 L. R. A. 561, 45 Am. St. Rep. 853; O'Brien v. Wis. Cent. T. Co., 119 Wis. 7, 96 N. W. 424; Wald v. Electric Ry., 18 Manitoba, 134, affirmed in 41 Can. S. C. 431; Cooke v. Midland G. W. Ry., ' 15 Ann. Cas. 557; McGregory v. RosS; (England) 10 Rettie, 725; Jacobs v. Koehler Sporting Goods Co., 208N. Y. 416,

102 N. E. 519, L. R. A. 1917F, 104.

A child of this tender age merely indulges the natural instincts of a child and amuses himself with an empty cart, a deserted horse, an automobile, or an electric truck, or whatever may be in his sight. In so doing he is not negligent. Lynch v. Nurdin, 113 Eng. Rep. 1041, 1 Q. B. Rep. 29. This case has been regarded as the basic authority for this' doctrine. Its facts are these:

"Mr. Nurdin was an egg merchant, and used to send his servant round Soho with a cart to deliver eggs to his customers. One day, when the man was out with the cart as usual, he imprudently left it for half an hour or so standing by itself on Compton street, drawn up by the side of the pavement. While he was away some little children began playing about the cart, climbing into it, and having all kinds of games. Amongst them was a little boy named Lynch, aged 6 years. He was in the act of climbing the step with a view to securing a box seat, when another mischievous little boy pulled at the horse's bridle. The horse moved on, and the little Lynch was thrown to the ground and hurt.

"The child successfully brought an action for, damages against the egg merchant, it being considered that he was not guilty of contributory negligence, as he had only obeyed a child's natural instinct in playing with the cart." Shirley's Leading Cases in the Common Law (3d English Edition) 273.

This principle is also announced in Nagel v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 75 Mo. 653, 42 Am. Rep. 418; Koons v. St. Louis R. Co., 65 Mo. 592; Union P. R. Co. v. Fort, 84 U. S. (17 Wall.) 553, 21 L. Ed. 553; Sioux City R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U. S. (17 Wall.) 657, 21 L. Ed. 745; Bailey on Personal Injuries, 1291; Black on Contributory Negligence, §§ 137-140; Rolin v. Tobacco Co., supra; Berry v. St. Louis, M. & S. E. R. Co., 214 Mo. 593, 114 S. W. 27; Birge v. Gardiner,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT