King v. Higgins, 686
| Decision Date | 13 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 686,686 |
| Citation | 272 N.C. 267,158 S.E.2d 67 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Virginia R. KING, Plaintiff, v. John J. HIGGINS and T & A Trucking Company, a corporation, Defendants. |
Hines & Dettor, Greensboro, for plaintiff appellant.
Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, Greensboro, for defendants appellees.
'It is almost the universal opinion that recovery may be had for mental or emotional disturbance in ordinary negligence cases where, coincident in time and place with the occurrence producing the mental stress, some actual physical impact or genuine physical injury also resulted directly from defendant's negligence.' Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C. 498, 112 S.E.2d 48. See also King v. Britt, 267 N.C. 594, 148 S.E.2d 594. In the present case the jury was instructed that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover at all, was to be awarded in a lump sum a fair and reasonable compensation for all of her injuries, past and prospective, including 'actual suffering both of body and mind.' There is no error in that portion of the charge quoted above in the statement of facts, to which the plaintiff excepted. It is in accord with the decision of this Court in Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 233 N.C. 607, 611, 65 S.E.2d 120. Furthermore, the plaintiff, having requested an instruction in almost the exact language used, canot complain of it as error entitling her to a new trial. Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 144, 132 S.E.2d 349; Carruthers v. Atlantic & Y. Ry. Co., 218 N.C. 377, 11 S.E.2d 157.
The contention that the court did not give the remainder of the instruction requested by the plaintiff is also without merit. Much of such remainder of the requested instruction was given in substance though not in the precise language of the request. In this there was no error since the court is not required to charge the jury in the precise language of the request so long as the substance of the request is included in language which does not weaken its force. Dinkins v. Booe, 252 N.C. 731, 114 S.E.2d 672; Lloyd v. Bowen, 170 N.C. 216, 86 S.E. 797.
It was not error for the court to refuse to give the definition of 'mental suffering' contained in the request. The definition or explanation of the term so requested included, among other things, 'mortification', 'embarrassment', 'humiliation', 'grief,' and 'disfiguring or humiliating' injuries. The plaintiff did not testify to any feeling of humiliation or embarrassment as a result of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiDonato v. Wortman
...at having lost her child presumably will be available in a personal injury action brought in her own right. See King v. Higgins, 272 N.C. 267, 158 S.E.2d 67 (1967). ...
-
Wesley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 7910SC733
...not because of a disavowal of the universal rule. That that was the case is evidenced by reiteration of the rule in King v. Higgins, 272 N.C. 267, 158 S.E.2d 67 (1967). It is significant that under the rule, a plaintiff may recover if there is "some actual physical impact or genuine physica......
-
Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc.
...may be refused, the court being under no duty to modify or qualify it so as to remedy the defect therein." King v. Higgins, 272 N.C. 267, 270, 158 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1967) (holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a requested definition that did not apply to the Here, the tr......
-
State v. Boone, 382A82
...mental stress some actual physical impact or genuine physical injury also results from the defendant's wrongful acts. King v. Higgins, 272 N.C. 267, 158 S.E.2d 67 (1967); Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C. 498, 112 S.E.2d 48 (1960). See also, Ford v. Blythe Bros. Co., 242 N.C. 347, 87 S.E.2d 8......