Watson v. Sylva Tanning Co.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 587. |
| Citation | 130 S.E. 833,190 N.C. 840 |
| Parties | WATSON v. SYLVA TANNING CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Haywood County; Finley, Judge.
Action by Jim Watson for damages for personal injuries against the Sylva Tanning Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. New trial.
Under statute, law applicable must be explained and applied to evidence and not stated generally.
Alley & Alley, of Waynesville, for appellant.
Walter E. Moore and Sutton & Stillwell, all of Sylva, for appellee.
The defendant complains that the trial judge in his instructions to the jury failed to "state in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon." C. S. § 564. In several cases recently decided we have stressed the necessity of observing this requirement, and have reiterated the suggestion that a statement of the contentions, accompanied with a bare enunciation of a legal principle, is not sufficient; it is imperative that the law be declared, explained, and applied to the evidence. Upon at least two of the issues the instructions consist almost entirely of a summary of the contentions of the parties; an error resulting, of course, from the momentary oversight of the cautious and thoughtful judge before whom the case was tried. Nichols v. Fibre Co., 190 N.C. 1, 128 S.E. 471; Richardson v. Cotton Mills, 189 N.C. 653, 127 S.E. 834; State v. O'Neal, 187 N.C. 22, 120 S.E. 817; State v. Thomas, 184 N.C. 757, 114 S.E. 834; State v. Merrick, 171 N.C. 788, 795, 88 S.E. 501.
For the error complained of, there must be a new trial.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryals v. Carolina Contracting Co.
... ... 1, ... 128 S.E. 471; Wilson v. Wilson, 190 N.C. 819, 130 ... S.E. 834; Watson v. Sylva Tanning Co., 190 N.C. 840, ... 130 S.E. 833; Williams v. Eastern Carolina Coach ... ...
-
Switzerland Co. v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
...S.E. 725. The conclusion is likewise made manifest by what was said in Nichols v. Fibre Co., supra; Williams v. Coach Co., supra; Watson v. Tanning Co., supra; State v. Merrick, supra; v. Matthews, supra; Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N.C. 248, 114 S.E. 170; Orvis Bros. & Co. v. Holt-Morgan Mills......
-
McNeill v. McNeill
... ... Bryant, 213 N.C. 752, 197 S.E. 530; Wilson v ... Wilson, 190 N.C. 819, 130 S.E. 834; Watson v ... Tanning Co., 190 N.C. 840, 130 S.E. 833; ... [25 S.E.2d 618.] ... Bowen v. Schnibben, ... ...
-
Smith v. Kappas
..."What is said in Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N.C. 12, 147 S.E. 435, 437, is peculiarly applicable in the instant case: 'Watson v. Tanning Co., 190 N.C. 840, 130 S.E. 833, is directly in point. There the trial court defined actionable negligence, gave the rule as to the burden of proof, fully......