Mikeal v. Pendleton, 528
| Citation | 75 S.E.2d 756,237 N.C. 690 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 528,528 |
| Parties | MIKEAL, v. PENDLETON et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Helms & Mulliss and Wm. H. Bobbitt, Jr., Charlotte, for defendants-appellants.
Jones & Small and Robinson & Jones, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.
It is established by the decisions of this Court that a motion for nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence shown by the plaintiff's evidence will be allowed only when the evidence is so clear that no other reasonable inference is deducible therefrom. Donlop v. Snyder, 234 N.C. 627, 68 S.E.2d 316; Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 51 S.E.2d 307; Fowler v. Atlantic Co., 234 N.C. 542, 67 S.E.2d 496.
An examination of the evidence adduced below when considered in its light most favorable to the plaintiff, as is the rule on motion for nonsuit, was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence against the defendants, free of facts and circumstances shown by the plaintiff's own evidence amounting to contributory negligence as a matter of law. The motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly overruled.
However, we are constrained to the view that the defendants are entitled to a new trial for errors appearing in the charge.
The court in charging the jury said:
The defendants, under exception duly brought forward, contend that this instruction is not an adequate definition of negligence. They assert that while the trial judge used the phrase 'some duty imposed by law,' he failed to state the nature and requirements of this 'duty'; that while the judge used the term 'due care,' at no place in the charge was the jury told what does or does not constitute 'due care,' or by what standard 'due care' is to be measured. Thus the defendants urge that it was left open for the jury to speculate as to the meaning of these technical terms and to give them such legal effect as the jury chose. In short, the defendants contend that this portion of the charge left it entirely for the jury to determine what duty the defendant driver owed the plaintiff and what acts or omissions constituted a breach of that duty.
The defendants' exception seems to be well taken. The court inadvertently failed to explain to the jury the rule of the reasonably prudent man. An examination of the entire charge leaves the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Rogers
...Bradham v. McLean Trucking Co., 243 N.C. 708, 91 S.E.2d 891; Singletary v. Nixon, 239 N.C. 634, 80 S.E.2d 676; Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E.2d 756; Morrisette v. A. G. Boone Co., 235 N.C. 162, 69 S.E.2d 239; Levy v. Carolina Aluminum Co., 232 N.C. 158, 59 S.E.2d 632; Dawson v. ......
-
Boone v. North Carolina R. Co.
...187 N.C. 805, 123 S.E. 84; Mills v. Moore, 219 N.C. 25, 12 S.E.2d 661; Hammett v. Miller, 227 N.C. 10, 40 S.E.2d 480; Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E.2d 756; Hart v. Curry, 238 N.C. 448, 78 S.E.2d Foreseeability does not require the negligent person should have been able to forese......
-
Wright v. Pegram
...N.C. 441, 85 S.E.2d 683; Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485; Gibson v. Whitton, 239 N.C. 11, 79 S.E.2d 196; Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E.2d 756; Ward v. Cruse, 236 N.C. 400, 72 S.E.2d 835, 38 A.L.R.2d 109; Donlop v. Snyder, 234 N.C. 627, 68 S.E.2d 316; Fowler v. Atl......
-
Gibson v. Whitton
...inference is deducible therefrom. Bundy v. Powell, supra; Beck v. Hooks, 218 N.C. 105, 10 S.E.2d 608. See also Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E.2d 756; Grimm v. Watson, 233 N.C. 65, 62 S.E.2d 538; Hobbs v. Drewer, 226 N.C. 146, 37 S.E.2d 121. An examination of the record in the lig......