Mewborn v. Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc.
| Citation | 191 S.E. 28,211 N.C. 544 |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 531. |
| Parties | MEWBORN et ux. v. RUDISILL GOLD MINE, Inc., et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; G. V. Cowper Special Judge.
Action to recover for injuries by A. M. Mewborn and his wife Florence A. Mewborn, against the Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc. and the Carson Realty Company. Judgment of nonsuit as to the Carson Realty Company. From a judgment for the Rudisill Gold Mines, Inc., following a trial on the issues, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Instructions are to be taken as a whole, not disconnectedly, and interpreted in the light of all the evidence, in determining their sufficiency.
This is an action to recover damages for injuries both to the persons and to the property of the plaintiffs which were caused by the operation by the defendant, Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc., as lessee of the defendant Carson Realty Company, of a gold mine which is located on property adjoining the property of the plaintiffs within the corporate limits of the city of Charlotte, N.C.
It is alleged in the complaint that by the maintenance and operation of the gold mine described therein, the defendants have created a nuisance which has caused injuries both to the persons and to the property of the plaintiffs. This allegation is denied in the answers of both the defendants.
At the close of all the evidence, the motion of the defendant Carson Realty Company that the action be dismissed as to said defendant by judgment as of nonsuit, was allowed. Judgment was rendered accordingly.
The evidence offered by the plaintiffs and by the defendant Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc., tended to support their conflicting contentions as to the facts.
Issues arising on the pleadings of the plaintiffs and of the defendant Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc., were submitted to the jury. The first and second issues were as follows:
The first issue was answered "Yes (by consent)." With respect to the second issue, the court instructed the jury as follows:
"On the second issue, the burden is on the plaintiffs to satisfy the jury by the greater weight of the evidence, that the defendant Rudisill Gold Mine, Inc., did maintain and operate the gold mine referred to in the complaint so as to create a nuisance as alleged, and that it did so up to the time of the trial.
One who owns, or maintains and operates, a mining plant must take proper precautions to prevent unnecessary or excessive noises, or vibrations or glaring lights, from becoming a nuisance to those residing in such proximity as to be injuriously affected by such noises, vibrations or lights, amounting to a nuisance, but this being done, unavoidable noises, and vibrations, and necessary lights must be considered as inconveniences to which neighbors must submit.
The Court further charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that mere noise, in itself, is not a nuisance, but noise may become a nuisance if it be of such excessive character as to produce actual physicial discomfort, and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
The Court further charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that as many useful acts are necessarily attended with more or less noise, vibrations and lights, reasonable noise, vibrations and lights, which are not excessive and abnormal under the circumstances do not constitute a nuisance.
Now gentlemen of the jury, the Court further instructs you on the second issue that the operation of a mine must occasion more noise and vibration than necessarily results from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial