Morris v. Sprott
| Citation | 177 S.E. 13,207 N. C. 358 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 390.,390. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MORRIS. v. SPROTT. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Harding, Judge.
Action by Leslie Carlisle Morris, by his next friend, S. T. Morris, against D. J. Sprott, trading as the Sprott Bros. Furniture Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
New trial.
The plaintiff, a lad of seven years of age, institutes this action by his next friend and father, for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the agent of the defendant. It is alleged in the complaint that the driver of the defendant's truck negligently backed said track over the plaintiff and injured him, and in the answer it is alleged that "the plaintiff contributed to and proximately caused his own injury and by his own negligent acts and conduct, in that he was hanging underneath defendant's truck, in that he failed to exercise that degree of care one of his age, intelligence and experience should have exercised under the conditions and circumstances then and there apparent to him; and that this defendant pleads such negligence on the part of said minor plaintiff in bar of his right to recover."
The court submitted issues as to the defendant's negligence and as to the measure of damage, and declined to submit an issue as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, tendered in proper form and in due time by the defendant. The court intimated that, since it appeared that the plaintiff was seven years old at the time of the alleged injury, he was of the opinion that the plaintiff could not be guilty of contributory negligence, and for that reason declined to submit the issue tendered by the defendant. To this ruling of the court the defendant excepted. The court also charged the jury "that a seven-year old child is incapable under our law of being guilty of contributory negligence as a bar to his right of action for damages for negligence of a defendant, if any, " and the defendant excepted.
The issues submitted were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment in accord therewith entered, and defendant appealed, assigning errors.
Hartsell & Hartsell, of Concord, for appellant.
H. S. Williams, of Concord, R. R. Hawfield, of Kannapolis, and H.L. Taylor, of Charlotte, for appellee.
We think his honor's holding, as a matter of law, that a child of seven years of age is incapable of being guilty of contributory negligence, is in conflict with the decisions of this court, which are to the effect that contributory negligence on the part of a child is to be measured by his age and his ability to discern and appreciate the circumstances of danger; and is not chargeable with the same degree of care as an experienced adult, but is only required to exercise such prudence as one of his age may be expected to possess; and this is usually, if not always, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walston v. Greene
...to be innocent and incapable of committing crime, but that presumption, in certain cases, may be rebutted * * *." In Morris v. Sprott, 207 N.C. 358, 177 S.E. 13, this Court held that it was error for the trial court to hold as a matter of law that a boy 7 years of age at the time of his inj......
- Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co.
-
Hollingsworth v. Burns
... ... rule as to the contributory negligence of a child has been ... repeatedly laid down by this court. In the recent case of ... Morris v. Sprott, 207 N.C. 358, 359, 177 S.E. 13, ... 14, Schenck, J., speaking for the court, thus states the law: ... "[He] is not chargeable with the ... ...
-
Boykin v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...Enc. 409; Plumley v. Birge, 124 Mass. 57, 26 Am.Rep. 645." Likewise, in approval of the position are the decisions in Morris v. Sprott, 207 N.C. 358, 177 S.E. 13; Alexander v. Statesville, 165 N.C. 527, 81 S.E. 763; Fry v. Utilities Co., 183 N.C. 281, 111 S.E. 354; Brown v. Southern R. Co.,......