Title: Dixon v. Wiley
Citation: 242 N.C. 117, 86 S.E.2d 784
Docket Number: 380
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 1955

86 S.E.2d 784 (1955)
242 N.C. 117
David W. DIXON
v.
Tessie WILEY.
No. 380.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April 13, 1955.
*785 White &amp; Aycock, Kinston, and Teague &amp; Johnson, Raleigh, for plaintiff, appellant.
Sutton &amp; Greene, Kinston, for defendant, appellee.
DENNY, Justice.
The plaintiff excepts to and assigns as error the entire portion of his Honor's charge relating to the second issue, which is as follows:
The plaintiff contends that the foregoing instruction does not constitute an adequate charge on contributory negligence, and we agree. In essence, it is a statement of the contentions of the parties with respect thereto and not a declaration and explanation of the law arising on the applicable evidence as contemplated by G.S. § 1-180. In fact, an examination of the entire charge reveals that the court did not define negligence or contributory negligence anywhere therein. Mikeal v. Pendleton, 237 N.C. 690, 75 S.E.2d 756.
In the case of Lewis v. Watson, 229 N.C. 20, 47 S.E.2d 484, 487, in considering a charge with respect to certain omissions, Ervin, J., in speaking for the Court, said: "The vice of this excerpt and of the charge as a whole * * * lies in the inadvertent omission of the court to call the attention of the twelve jurors unfamiliar with legal standards to what was necessary to guide them to a right decision on the issue. The charge gave no explanation as to what constitutes car less and reckless driving in the eyes of the law, or as to when a motorist is keeping a proper lookout in legal contemplation."
Moreover, it is error simply to state the contentions of a party and not declare and explain the law applicable to the facts which the jury might find from the evidence offered in support of such contentions. Hawkins v. Simpson, 237 N. C. 155, 74 S.E.2d 331; Mallard v. Mallard, *786 234 N.C. 654, 68 S.E.2d 247; Chambers v. Allen, 233 N.C. 195, 63 S.E.2d 212; State v. Herbin, 232 N.C. 318, 59 S.E.2d 635; State v. Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E.2d 142; Nichols v. Champion Fibre Co., 190 N.C. 1, 128 S.E. 471.
The plaintiff is entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.
New trial.
BARNHILL, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.