Foot Et Ux v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
| Decision Date | 18 September 1906 |
| Parties | FOOT et ux. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Trial—Special Verdict—Inconsistency.
In an action for personal injuries the first issue submitted to the jury was whether plaintiff was injured by defendant's negligence, and the second issue whether such negligence was wanton and willful. Held, that affirmative answers were not so inconsistent that no judgment could be rendered thereon, where, though the evidence showed that defendant's breach of duty was willful and intentional, no one would conclude that defendant intended to cause the injury.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 856.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Halifax County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by Joseph Foot and wife against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Civil action tried before Shaw, J., and a jury at March term, 1906, of Halifax superior court. Under the charge of the court the jury rendered the following verdict upon the issues submitted: There was a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.
Day & Bell and Murray Allen, for appellant.
Claude Kltchin, W. E. Daniel, and E. L. Travis, for appellee.
The only exception urged upon our attention or insisted upon by the appellant is that the verdict of the jury on the first and second issues is contradictory or inconsistent to such a degree that no judgment can be entered thereon, and a new trial must be awarded to the end that the rights of the parties may be properly determined; the position being that the answer to the first issue establishes a negligent and to the second, a willful, actionable wrong, and that the twocannot coexist. The position may be sound under certain circumstances, but we do not think the facts bring the present case within the principle. It will be noted that both issues are addressed to the question of negligence, and the same negligence: (1) Was the plaintiff Maria Foot injured by the negligence of the defendant? And (2) if so: Was said negligence wanton and willful?
In answer to the first, the jury found that there was a negligent act of the defendant causing the injury, and in answer to the second, they fixed the character of the negligence, the issue having been evidently framed to enable the jury to say whether the wrongful act of the defendant was one which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
...of the locomotive engine in charge of the proper servants of the company." This seems to be the view of this court in Foot v. R. R., 142 N. C. 52, 54 S. E. 843, where it is said: "The breach of duty can be, and frequently is, intentional and willful, and yet the act may be negligent." To sa......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
...of the locomotive engine in charge of the proper servants of the company." This seems to be the view of this court in Foot v. R. R., 142 N.C. 52, 54 S.E. 843, where it said: "The breach of duty can be, and frequently is, intentional and willful, and yet the act may be negligent." To same ef......
-
Sorrell v. White
...is referred to the breach of duty instead of to the injury caused or damage done, the term is not improper. Foot v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 142 N. C. 52, 54 S. E. 843, 844. To be willfully negligent, one must be conscious of his conduct, and although having no intent to injure, must be c......
-
Jackson v. Scheiber
... ... be answerable for his acts." Southwell v. Atlantic ... Coast Line R. R., 189 N.C. 417, 419, 127 S.E. 361; Id., ... 191 N.C. 153, 131 S.E. 670; Atlantic Coast Line ... 64, 65, 48 S.Ct. 25, 72 L.Ed. 157 ... It is ... said by Hoke, J., in Foot v. Railroad, 142 N.C. 52, ... 53, 54, 54 S.E. 843, 844: "The breach of duty can be, ... and ... ...