Title: Brewer v. Harris

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

182 S.E.2d 345 (1971)
279 N.C. 288
Kenneth W. BREWER, Administrator of the Estate of Farrell L. Brewer, Plaintiff,
v.
William P. HARRIS, Administrator of the Estate of Gary Rudisill, Defendant.
No. 102.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
July 30, 1971.
*346 John Haworth, Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn & Haworth, High Point, for plaintiff appellee.
Perry C. Henson and Daniel W. Donahue, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
BRANCH, Justice.
Defendant appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the complaint was sufficient to raise an issue as to whether the conduct of defendant's intestate was wilful and wanton.
Plaintiff by his complaint, inter alia, alleged:
The effective date of the Rules of Civil Procedure contained in Chapter 1A of the General Statutes was 1 January 1970, and the Rules apply to actions and proceedings pending on that date as well as to actions and proceedings commenced on and after that date. Session Laws of 1969, Ch. 803, § 10; Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E.2d 161.
This case was tried on 18 May 1970 and is therefore governed by the "New Rules." G. S. § 1A-1, Rule 8 provides:
In Sutton v. Duke, supra, this Court considered the effect of this rule and, speaking through Sharp, J., stated:
We find further aid in interpreting these Rules by reference to the illustrative forms approved by the legislature in G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 84, where we find the following:
This form approves a short statement of the basic occurrences and the use of the words "reckless" and "wilful" to describe the character of a defendant's conduct as sufficient notice of the claim "to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought. * * *"
Certainly the detailed factual allegations and the description of the character of defendant's intestate's alleged conduct in instant case meets the requirement of "notice theory of pleading." Our conclusion that this complaint gave defendant fair notice of the nature of plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rested draws strength from the fact that defendant's answer alleges "wilful and wanton" conduct on the part of Brewer in pleading contributory negligence.
We hold that plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to raise the issue of defendant's intestate's wilful and wanton conduct.
Appellant contends that plaintiff failed to allege wilful and wanton conduct within the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 1A-1 Rule 9(b) stating that conditions of mind may be generally averred. Since we hold that the complaint meets the requirements of G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 84, Form 4, we find no merit in this contention.
We next consider appellant's contention that the evidence was not sufficient to require submission of an issue as to the wilful *349 and wanton conduct of defendant's intestate.
The evidence pertinent to decision of this question may be summarized as follows:
Brewer and Carroll had been acquainted for several years, including association in the military service in Vietnam. Carroll had been separated from the service, and Brewer was on a weekend leave from his military station at Fort Benning, Georgia. On the night of 15 September 1968 they met at the Guilford Dairy in High Point at about 9:30 o'clock, and thereafter went for a ride in Carroll's automobile. During the evening both Carroll and Brewer had two drinks of Bourbon whiskey, and they together consumed about one-half pint. Brewer and Carroll returned to the Dairy around 11:00 o'clock p. m., and there met Rudisill. Sometime later they left in Rudisill's Corvette, with Brewer driving, Rudisill sitting on the console between the two seats, and Carroll sitting in the passenger seat. Brewer drove the automobile in a southerly direction on South Main Street through High Point to a service station in Archdale, North Carolina. There they stopped and talked a few minutes. On their return trip Rudisill drove, Carroll sat in the passenger seat, and Brewer sat on the console.
The witness Carroll testified:
"* * * The left hand side of the car struck the telephone pole. I do not know what happened after that. * * *"
Carroll also testified that he saw Rudisill drinking from a plastic glass at the Guilford Dairy, and that Rudisill was "talking to different people * * * just like everybody else around there."
C. W. Pike of the High Point Police Department, testifying for defendant, stated that he arrived at the scene of the accident about 1:35 a. m., and that he observed pressure marks beginning in the northbound lane of South Main Street. The marks continued 268 feet to a telephone pole, which apparently was severed by the impact of the Corvette automobile. The marks continued 124 feet to a second telephone pole, which was also damaged, and from there continued 70 feet to the rear of the Corvette. The Corvette's last impact *350 was a head-on collision with the Pontiac which was traveling in a southerly direction in the southbound lane of Main Street.
Defendant also presented evidence, over plaintiffs' objection, that Rudisill had a.31% alcohol content in his blood and that Brewer had an alcohol content of .11%. Dr. Thomas Terrell testified that if the jury should find that Rudisill had .31% alcohol content in his blood, he was "highly intoxicated," and if the jury should find that Brewer had .11% alcohol content in his blood, that he was "mildly intoxicated."
The term "wilful and wanton conduct" was defined by this Court in the case of Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 148 S.E. 36. There the Court stated:
Accord: Givens v. Sellars, 273 N.C. 44, 159 S.E.2d 530; Hinson v. Dawson, 244 N.C. 23, 92 S.E.2d 393; Blevins v. France, 244 N.C. 334, 93 S.E.2d 549.
Ordinarily, contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff does not bar recovery when the wilful and wanton conduct of a defendant is a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Pearce v. Barham, 271 N.C. 285, 156 S.E.2d 290; Blevins v. France, supra; Brendle v. Spencer, 125 N.C. 474, 34 S.E. 634.
Both plaintiff and defendant cite the case of Pearce v. Barham, supra. We think that this question is controlled by the decision in Pearce. In that case the Court, speaking through Bobbitt, J., now C. J., inter alia stated:
Perhaps the facts in instant case make out an even stronger case of wilful and wanton conduct than is shown in Pearce, since here we have evidence of *351 protest and warning by plaintiff's intestate concerning defendant's intestate. In any event, the evidence here presented was ample to allow the jury to find that his conduct was both wilful and wanton.
The trial court erred by not submitting the issue requested by plaintiff and the error is prejudicial, since the plaintiff's right to recover was barred upon a finding of contributory negligence.
Finally, defendant argues that, based on the court's instructions, the jury found the plaintiff's intestate guilty of wilful and wanton contributory negligence.
It is true that the trial judge referred to defendant's allegations of Brewer's wilful and wanton conduct and to defendant's contention that Brewer displayed wilful and wanton disregard for his own safety. However, in his final mandate to the jury on the issue of contributory negligence the trial judge stated:
Further examination of the charge reveals that the trial judge undertook to define "due care" but omitted any definition of "wilful and wanton conduct"; neither did he apply "wilful and wanton conduct" to the facts of the case so that the jury would have been able to determine what act or omission on the part of plaintiff's intestate could be characterized as wilful and wanton. Thus, consistent with his refusal to submit an issue as to Rudisill's wilful and wanton conduct, the trial judge based his charge on the second issue upon the theory of ordinary contributory negligence.
We do not agree with defendant's contention that, based on the court's instructions, the jury found plaintiff's intestate guilty of wilful and wanton contributory negligence.
We note, in passing, that this appeal does not require decision as to whether plaintiff could recover if both Brewer and Rudisill had been guilty of wilful and wanton conduct which was a proximate cause of Brewer's injury.
The Court of Appeals properly granted a new trial
Affirmed.