Title: Cain v. Gencor, Inc

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 318PA97
FILED: 6 MARCH 1998
LENNON DAVID CAIN and LINDA S. CAIN, husband and wife
v.
GENCOR, INC., an Ohio corporation, d/b/a GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER
CORPORATION, INC., an Ohio corporation
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of
an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 126 N.C. App.
435, 491 S.E.2d 567 (1997), affirming in part and reversing in
part a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendants
by Burroughs, J. in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, on 14
February 1996, and granting plaintiffs a new trial.  Heard in the
Supreme Court 15 December 1997. 
DeVore & Acton, P.A., by Fred W. DeVore III, for
plaintiff-appellees.
Dean & Gibson, L.L.P., by Rodney Dean and
D. Christopher Osborn, for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM
Under Rule 51(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure, the trial judge is no longer required to summarize or
recapitulate the evidence, or to explain the application of the
law to the evidence.  Nor is the judge required to state the
contentions of the parties.  However, if the judge undertakes to
state the contentions of the parties, equal stress must be given
to the contentions of each party.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals, in an
unpublished opinion, concluded that the trial court committed
reversible error by giving more emphasis to defendant’s
contentions of contributory negligence than it did to plaintiffs’
contentions of negligence.  The jury answered in the negative as
to whether plaintiff Lennon Cain was injured by the negligence of
defendant and, therefore, did not reach the question of
contributory negligence.  We have reviewed the trial judge’s
instructions in their entirety, including the instructions and
reinstructions on negligence, contributory negligence, and
willful and wanton conduct.  Viewing the instructions as a whole,
we are satisfied that the trial judge’s instructions, while not a
model of clarity, did not mislead the jury to the prejudice of
plaintiffs.  See Gregory v. Lynch, 271 N.C. 198, 155 S.E.2d 488
(1967); Burgess v. Construction Co., 264 N.C. 82, 140 S.E.2d 766
(1965); Mayberry v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc., 260 N.C.
126, 131 S.E.2d 671 (1963).  Accordingly, we reverse the decision
of the Court of Appeals and remand for reinstatement of the
judgment of the trial court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.