Young v. Gruner
| Decision Date | 26 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 539.) |
| Citation | 92 S.E. 618 |
| Parties | YOUNG. v. GRUNER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Harding, Judge.
Action by W. A. Young against Doctor E. P. Gruner. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained while an inmate of a private sanitarium of the defendant, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
The evidence tended to prove that the plaintiff was taken to the sanitarium on February 15, 1915, by two of his friends, while he was practically unconscious, caused by the excessive use of alcohol; that he was received by the defendant as a patient and was placed in what was called a safety room; that he was treated by the defendant and went to sleep about 5 o'clock in the evening; that some time thereafter he became boisterous and was taken to a room in a lower story, where he was left without attendance until the next morning; that about 12 or 1 o'clock at night, being very thirsty, he got up, and, in moving about in the dark in his search for water, fell into a concrete swimming pool six or seven feet deep, and his leg was broken and he was otherwise in jured; that he remained in this pool from about 1 o'clock at night until about 7 o'clock the next morning; that he made various efforts to get out of the pool, but was unable to do so; and that he called for help at different times during the night and no one came to him. The swimming pool was encircled with an iron railing, except where the steps led down into the pool. The defendant offered evidence tending to prove that, after the plaintiff was taken from the safety room, he was discharged as a patient and was permitted to sleep in the lower room at his request until the next morning.
The plaintiff testified as to this that in his condition he did not know what took place, and there was evidence in his behalf that he was bordering on delirium tremens.
There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.
J. W. Ilaynes, of Asheville, for appellant.
R. M. Wells and J. E. Swain, both of Asheville, for appellee.
The questions in controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant were resolved into an issue of fact under the instructions given to the jury, and this fact has been decided against the defendant by the jury.
His honor imposed upon the defendant the duty of exercising ordinary care under the circumstances for the protection of the plaintiff, and he charged them specifically, according to the contention of the defendant, that:
"If you find by the greater weight of the evidence that for several days prior to February 15, 1915, the plaintiff had been on a protracted debauch, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martin
...witness, but does so, if answered fully by the same witness. State v. Rollins, 113 N. C. 722, 18 S. E. 394; Young v. Gruner, at this term, 92 S. E. 618. Fourth. The charge as to reasonable doubt was quite sufficient. An intelligent jury could not fail to understand that they must try the de......
-
Penlano v. French Brd. Hosp. Inc
...charitable purposes, for damages to its patients resulting from negligence attributable to the agents of such hospital. Young v. Gruner, 173 N. C. 622, 92 S. E. 618; Green v. Biggs, 167 N. C. 417, 83 S. E. 553." This principle, however, is not determinative of the right of plaintiffs to rec......
-
Pangle v. Hall
...charitable purposes, for damages to its patients resulting from negligence attributable to the agents of such hospital. Young v. Gruner, 173 N. O. 622, 92 S. E. 618; Green v. Biggs, 167 N. C. 417, 83 S. E. 553; Hogan v. Hospital Co., 63 W. Va. 84, 59 S. E. 943; Harris v. Woman's Hospital, 2......
-
Smith v. Simpson
...Railway Co., supra; Hogan v. Hospital, 63 W. Va. 84, 59 S. E. 943; Harris v. Hospital, 27 Abb. N. C. 37, 14 N. Y. S. 881; Young v. Gruner, 173 N. C. 622, 92 S. E. 618; Robertson v. Town's Hosp., 178 App. Div. 285, 165 N. Y. S. 17. Furthermore, section 4219, R. S. Mo. 1919, "And in every suc......