Duke v. Crippled Children's Commission, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1938
• Docket Number: 676.
• Citation: 199 S.E. 918,214 N.C. 570
• Parties: DUKE v. CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S COMMISSION, Inc.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

199 S.E. 918

214 N.C. 570

DUKE v. CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S COMMISSION, Inc.

No. 676.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 14, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Frank S. Hill, Special Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Duke, by her next friend, Haywood Duke, against the Crippled Children's Commission, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as the result of negligence of the defendant and its agents, while the plaintiff was a patient in the hospital maintained and operated by the defendant. From an order denying defendant's motion to strike a paragraph of the complaint, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

In an action for damages for personal injury, evidence that defendant's liability for the act complained of has been insured by a third person is generally inadmissible.

In personal injury action, evidence that the defendant had made special arrangements to pay any judgment that might be rendered against it on account of its negligence or the negligence of its servants and agents is inadmissible.

Smith Wharton & Hudgins, of Greensboro, for appellant.

Frazier & Frazier, of Greensboro, for appellee.

SCHENCK Justice.

The plaintiff, a minor suing by her next friend, alleges that while a patient in a children's hospital maintained and operated by the defendant she was injured by the negligence of the defendant and its agents.

Paragraph 13 of the complaint is as follows: "13. That the plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that a recovery in this suit will not impair or diminish the trust property in the hands of said corporation donated for charitable uses and said plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that the defendant has made special arrangements to pay any and all judgments that might be rendered against it on account of its negligence or the negligence of its servants and agents."

Before time for answering expired the defendant lodged motion that paragraph 13 "be stricken from said complaint for that and in that the same constitutes improper pleading, is immaterial, irrelevant and prejudicial." C. S. § 537.

The motion was denied and defendant reserved exception and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the denial by the Court of its motion to strike.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that in an action for damages for a personal injury evidence that the defendant's liability for the act complained of has been insured by a third person, is ordinarily incompetent. Lytton v. Mfg. Co., 157 N.C. 331, 72 S.E. 1055 Ann.Cas.1913C, 358; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N.C 266, 269, 136 S.E. 726, and cases there cited, Scott v. Bryan, 210 N.C. 478,...