Case Name: MRS. SAM D. STONE v. TOWN OF BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA, and E. S. TURLINGTON, Trading as E. S. TURLINGTON & CO.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1938-10-12
Citations: 214 N.C. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: MRS. SAM D. STONE v. TOWN OF BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA, and E. S. TURLINGTON, Trading as E. S. TURLINGTON & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
MRS. SAM D. STONE v. TOWN OF BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA, and E. S. TURLINGTON, Trading as E. S. TURLINGTON & CO.
(Filed 12 October, 1938.)
1. Municipal Corporations § 14—
Nonsuit held proper as to defendant municipality in this action to recover for fall on sidewalk alleged to have been caused by tbe presence of oil thereon.
2. Appeal and Error § 40a—
The verdict of the jury is conclusive in the absence of error of law in the trial.
Appeal by plaintiff from Harris, J., at February Term, 1938, of JohNstoN.
No error.
Action for damages for personal injury. Plaintiff alleged sbe sustained an injury resulting from a fall on the sidewalk of the town of Benson and in front of defendant Turlington’s store, and that her fall was caused by the presence of oil on the sidewalk negligently permitted there by the defendants.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence motion for judgment of nonsuit as to the town of Benson was allowed. Issues submitted to the jury as to the defendant Turlington were answered as follows:
“1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Ans.: ‘Yes.’
“2. Did the plaintiff, by her own negligence, contribute to her said injury, as alleged in the answer? Ans.: ‘Yes.’
“3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Ans.: ‘None.’ ”
From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed.
R. L. Godwin and Ezra Parlcer for plaintiff, appellant.
Larry F. Wood and L. L. Levinson for defendants, appellees.

Opinion:
DeviN, J.
Upon the evidence offered on the trial judgment of nonsuit as to the town of Benson was properly entered. The controverted issues of fact as to the liability of defendant Turlington have been determined in his favor. The assignments of error as to the judge's charge cannot be sustained. In the trial we find
No error.