Case Name: J. E. RICHARDSON v. T. M. EDWARDS et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-11-01
Citations: 156 N.C. 590
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. E. RICHARDSON v. T. M. EDWARDS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
J. E. RICHARDSON v. T. M. EDWARDS et al.
(Filed 1 November, 1911.)
Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Issues—Instructions—Harmless Error.
In an action for damages for personal injuries received, tbe first issue being upon tbe question of defendant’s negligence causing tbe injury, tbe second issue read, “If so, did plaintiff! contribute to bis injury?” Hclci, the error in the second issue was cured under an instruction that the jury should consider the issue as if it had read, “Did tbe plaintiff contribute by his own negligence to his injury?”
Appeal by plaintiff from 0. II. Allen, J., at February Term, 1911, of UNION.
These issues were submitted:
1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by the negligence of tbe defendant ? Answer: Yes.
2. If so, did the plaintiff contribute to bis injury? Answer: Tes.
3. What damage, if any, did plaintiff sustain?
From the-judgment rendered the plaintiff appealed.
Stack & Parker for plaintiff.
Redwine & Sikes, Adams, Armfield & Adams for defendants.

Opinion:
Per Oubiam.
The form of the second issue is defective. The record shows that his Honor instructed the jury to consider the issue as if it read, "Did the plaintiff contribute by his own negligence to his injury?" which is the usual and approved form. We think the error was fully cured.
We have examined the other assignments of error, all of which relate to the charge of the court, and find them to be without substantial merit.
The case was fairly put to the jury in accord with the well-settled decisions of this Court.
No error.