Slaughter v. Slaughter, 850
Decision Date | 18 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 850,850 |
Citation | 142 S.E.2d 683,264 N.C. 732 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Beulah W. SLAUGHTER v. J. H. SLAUGHTER, Jr. |
Mason, Williamson & Etheridge, Laurinburg, for plaintiff.
Henry & Henry Lumberton, for defendant.
The appeal raises two questions for decision.
(1) Is plaintiff's evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to her, sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for nonsuit?
Plaintiff was 67 years of age and resided at Graham, N. C. At the time of the accident in question, 30 January 1964, she was visiting in the home of defendant, her son, at Laurinburg, N. C., and had been a guest there for about two weeks. Defendant and his wife planned to go out to dinner; plaintiff was to stay with the children. About 7:30 P.M., plaintiff and the two children, ages two and nine years, were seated on the sofa in the den, 6 to 8 feet from a large window, watching television. The drapes at the lower part of the window were drawn; at the top they were open. It was dark outside. There was a dimlight in the den.
Plaintiff describes the occurrence thus:
Defendant's wife, alarmed by the explosions and the screaming of the children, ran outside. She found defendant Defendant told her
Plaintiff suffered a 'fracture of the left hip' and 'fracture of proximal end of the left fibula,' requiring surgical treatment. Other serious injuries and conditions also resulted from plaintiff's fall. She incurred surgical, medical, hospital, nursing and equipment expenses totalling $3,886.97. She underwent much pain and suffering.
Defendant offered no evidence.
In a recent case, Langford v. Shu, 258 N.C. 135, 128 S.E.2d 210, this Court speaking through Sharp, J., stated these principles which are in accord with the weight of authority: Further: See also: Farr v. Cambridge Co-operative Oil Company, 164 Neb. 45, 81 N.W.2d 597; Kiener v. Steinfeld, 137 N.J.L. 679, 61 A.2d 305; Nickerson v. Hodges, 146 La. 735, 84 So. 37, 9 A.L.R. 361; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Roch, 160 Md. 189, 153 A. 22; Parker v. Enslow, 102 Ill. 272.
As a general rule, damages for mere fright are not recoverable, but if there is a contemporaneous physical injury resulting from defendant's conduct there may be a recovery. 11 A.L.R., Anno. Resulting in Physical Injury, pp. 1119-1144, supplemented by 40 A.L.R. 983, 76 A.L.R. 681, and 98 A.L.R. 402. See also Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C. 498, 112 S.E.2d 48; Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corp., 210 N.C. 808, 188 S.E. 625.
Defendant does not dispute the validity or applicability of the foregoing general statements of law. He centers his attack upon a single element of actionable negligence--foreseeability. He contends that plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries were not, as a matter of law, reasonably foreseeable, that they were unusual and unlikely results of his conduct and that it imposes 'too heavy a responsibility to hold him bound * * * to guard against what is unusual and unlikely to happen, or what, as it is sometimes said, is only remotely and slightly probable.' Herring v. Humphrey, 254 N.C. 741, 745, 119 S.E.2d 913, 916, 91 A.L.R.2d 1320. Defendant cites no case, factually analogous, in which comparable injury from comparable conduct is held to be unforeseeable as a matter of law. He relies on general principles relating to foreseeability.
It is sufficient if by the exercise of reasonable care the defendant might have foreseen that some injury would result from his conduct or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected. Bondurant v. Mastin, 252 N.C. 190, 113 S.E.2d 292. Usually the question of foreseeability is one for the jury. McIntyre v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. Fowler
...v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 364 N.C. 222, 226, 695 S.E.2d 437 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Slaughter v. Slaughter , 264 N.C. 732, 735, 142 S.E.2d 683 (1965) ).¶ 28 Defendants argue that the complaint "failed to include requisite allegations of fact that a reasonably fore......
-
Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A.
...in 1937 in the case of Sparks v. Products Corp., 212 N.C. 211, 213-14, 193 S.E. 31, 33 (1937). See also Slaughter v. Slaughter, 264 N.C. 732, 735, 142 S.E.2d 683, 686 (1965). In Crews v. Finance Company, 271 N.C. 684, 689, 157 S.E.2d 381, 385 (1967), we find more of this "unfortunate" langu......
-
Dickens v. Puryear
...efforts; held, plaintiff could recover for resulting nervousness, acute angina, and high blood pressure); Slaughter v. Slaughter, 264 N.C. 732, 142 S.E.2d 683 (1965) (defendant, son of plaintiff, exploded firecrackers outside his home where plaintiff was a guest with the purpose of frighten......
-
Stanback v. Stanback
...Martin v. Spencer, 221 N.C. 28, 18 S.E.2d 703 (1942); Langford v. Shu, 258 N.C. 135, 128 S.E.2d 210 (1962); and Slaughter v. Slaughter, 264 N.C. 732, 142 S.E.2d 683 (1965). The most recent opinion of this Court applying the Kirby decision is Crews v. Provident Finance Co., 271 N.C. 684, 157......