Wallace v. Western N. C. E. Co

• Decision Date: 21 December 1889
• Citation: 104 N.C. 442,10 S.E. 552
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Wallace v. Western N. C. E. Co.

10 S.E. 552
(104 N.C. 442)

Wallace
v.
Western N. C. E. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 21, 1889.

Constitutional Law— Damages— Evidence—Instructions.

1. Acts N. C. 1887, c. 38, placing the burden of proving contributory negligence on defendant in actions against railroad companies for injuries through negligence, affects only the remedy, and impairs no vested right, and is constitutional.

2. In an action against a railroad company for personal injuries, evidence as to plaintiff's net earnings in his trade is admissible.

3. The court instructed the jury as follows: "In this class of cases the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages one compensation for all injuries, past and prospective, in consequence of defendant's wrongful or negligent acts. These are understood to embrace indemnity for actual nursing and medical expenses and loss of time, or from inability to perform ordinary labor, or capacity to earn money. Plaintiff is to have a reasonable satisfaction (if he is entitled to recover) for loss of both bodily and mental powers, or for actual suffering both of the body and mind, which are the immediate and necessary consequences of the injury. " Held a proper charge.

Appeal from superior court, McDowell county; Philips, Judge.

This was an action to recover damages from the defendant railroad company for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff on account of the alleged negligence of defendant. The defendant assigns the following as errors of law committed by the court: (1) The court's refusal to allow the defendant to ask the plaintiff what his net earnings were in the exercise of his trade. It was competent upon the question of damages to be assessed in favor of the plaintiff. (2) The court's refusal to instruct the jury, as required in the fourth instruction prayed by the defendant, that it was " usual and proper for a passenger to remain in his seat, and especially so on freight trains, while being transported." (3) The court's refusal to instruct the jury, as prayed in the fifth instruction of defendant, " that if the plaintiff, by remaining in his seat, could have avoided the injury, and his getting up was the cause of the same, then he contributed to his injury by his negligence." (4) The court's refusal to instruct the jury, as requested in the sixth prayer of defendant: " There being no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff did get up from his seat, and was injured by reason thereof, the court should find as a proposition of law that he...