Court Opinion

ID: 9811973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:34:49.672083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:32.157722
License: Public Domain

OlakK, C. J.,
dissenting: The feme plaintiff was seriously injured in a derailment. The defendant placed no witness on the stand to explain the cause of the derailment or to testify to the extent or nature of the injuries sustained by the feme plaintiff. The only witnesses testifying as to these injuries and the derailment were the plaintiff herself and her son: The • defendant did not put upon the stand a single witness who was or. had been in its employ. The physicians on both sides testified that they could not tell exactly ho'w severe nervous shocks* affected patients, and had to rely upon what the patient told them in the treatment thereof.
Not a single witness on either side had, or claimed to have, any interest in the result of the action except the feme plaintiff, her husband and her son: These alone knew the extent of her suffering and injuries. The verdict of the jury on the second issue as to damages was dependent almost entirely upon the testimony of these witnesses. While there were other witnesses, the testimony of these was the foundation upon which the jury had to rely in awarding damages. The defendant contended before the jury that these witnesses had magnified plaintiff’s injuries, and that she was not really injured at all.
The court told the jury: “Weigh all this evidence, gentlemen, in every way, and in weighing it you have a right to take into consideration the interest that the parties have in the result of your verdict.” No parties testified in the action who had any interest in the same exeej)t the feme plaintiff, her husband and son. No one else, on either side, had any interest in the result. The instruction ,of the court, therefore, could apply only to them, and was a caution to the jury to consider their evidence with suspicion, or, at least, in a different way from the other witnesses testifying, because they were interested in the *323result of tbe verdict and might be disposed to magnify tbe injuries of tbe feme plaintiff, as was contended by tbe defendant.
Upon all tbe authorities in this State, this charge, when nothing further is said by tbe court, is contrary to our statute, which forbids any intimation upon tbe weight of tbe evidence by tbe judge. There are decisions to tbe contrary in those States which have no statute like ours, and in which, as also in the Federal court, the judge is not forbidden to express an opinion upon the evidence.'
Under the unbroken line of authorities in this State, it has always been error for the judge to caution the jury as to the interest of witnesses in the result of the verdict, unless he goes further, and explains to the jury that, notwithstanding the interest of the parties in the result of their verdict, their testimony as such witnesses may be believed, and, if believed, should be given the same weight as that of disinterested witnesses. It is plain that if this added instruction is not given, and the testimony of such witnesses goes to the jury with the criticism upon the interest they have, the judge has depreciated seriously the weight which should be given to their testimony.
In S. v. Graham, 133 N. C., 652, this Court, speaking through Connor, J., said: “It is error to instruct the jury that because of interest they should carefully scrutinize the evidence of the defendant, without adding, that if the jury believe the evidence, it should have the same weight as if the witness was not interested
In S. v. McDowell, 129 N. C., 532, the Court said: “If they find the witness to be credible and that he has sworn to the truth, his testimony should have the same weight as if he was not interested; and it ivas error in the court when charging upon the subject of interest not to have so charged the jury.”
In S. v. Holloway, 117 N. C., 732, the court below instructed the jury: “They had a right to scrutinize closely the testimony of the defendants and receive it with grains of allowance, on account of their interest in the event of the action.” This Court said thereon: “This charge is capable of misleading the jury into the impression, or belief, that the evidence of interested parties is to some extent discredited, although the jury *324may 'think the' witness is honest and has told the truth. His Honor should have gone further, and have explained to the jury, after having properly called their attention to the interested relation of the witness, that if they believed the witness to be credible, then they shovM give to this testimony the smie weight as to the evidence of other imtnesses.” This rule has been approved S. v. Boon, 82 N. C., 648; S. v. Byers, 100 N. C., 517; S. v. Collins, 118 N. C., 1203; S. v. Lee, 121 N. C., 545; S. v. Apple, ib., 585.
In Speight v. R. R., 161 N. C., 80, the Court approved the following charge-: “It is -your duty to carefully consider the testimony of the plaintiff, and ascertain the best you can what influence the interest which she has in the suit would have.upon the truthfulness of her testimony, and take into consideration all the testimony. - If you find she told the truth, then you must give to her testimony the same faith and effect that you would to the testimony of^any disinterested witness/ To the same effect is the statement of the rule as laid down by Walker, J., in the still more recent case of S. v. Vann, post.
The act of 1796, ch. 452, now Revisal, 535, prohibits a judge, in this State, to intimate, directly or indirectly, to the jury any opinion as to the credibility of a witness, whether they are interested or not. That is the province of the jury. Here the weight to be attached to the testimony of the feme plaintiff and her husband and son (who are the only witnesses, who were interested in the result of the action) was a vital matter, and the court told the jury that su'ch testimony -was to be considered with allowance for their interest.- He therefore disparaged -it greatly in the eyes of the jury, and it was error under our authorities, and under a just construction of our statute, to fail to tell the jury that, notwithstanding such interest, they were at liberty to give to the testimony of these witnesses the same weight as if they were disinterested,. if the jury believed what . they said.
In S. v. Ownby, 146 N. C., 678, Walker, J., says: “The slightest intimation from a judge as to the strength of the evidence or as to the credibility of a witness will always haye great weight with the jury, and therefore we must be careful *325to see that neither party is unduly prejudiced by any expression from the bench which is likely to prevent a fair and impartial trial.”
The instruction here given very clearly discredited the parties as witnesses, because of their interest in the event of the action.
The judge told the jury that it was their duty to consider the fact that the parties named were interested. The jury certainly inust have understood that greater weight would be given to the testimony of disinterested parties and that less weight would be given to the testimony of these witnesses because they were not disinterested. This was error. There are numerous opinions in other States to this' effect. But the decisions under our statute have been so clear and uniform that nothing can be added to them from outside sources.
Further, the court erred, as claimed in the second exception, in telling the jury that they should “take into consideration the interest that they (the parties testifying) may have shown, or their bias, on the stand.” This assumes that the witnesses have shown interest or bias, because the judge did not add that it was for the jury to determine if they had shown such interest or bias in testifying. The judge did not say, “If you find they have shown such bias.”
The amount of the verdict shows very clearly that the jury did not give full weight to the testimony of these witnesses. If the judge had told them that they could give to the testimony of these witnesses the same faith and weight as if they were disinterested, and then the verdict had been as it is, the result-would clearly be due to the fact that the jury did not believe these witnesses. But when the judge told them that the testimony of interested parties was discredited by the mere fact of interest, and did not add (as our statute ^nd our decisions require) that such interest was merely a circumstance, and that the jury could, notwithstanding, give that testimony such weight as they thought proper, the-plaintiff was deprived of the bene-, fit of having the testimony placed impartially before the jury with entire freedom to give it full credit without any suspicion being cast upon it, as a matter of law, as was done by the charge in this case.
*326To call attention to any circumstance which, will impair the weight of testimony is erroneous, unless the judge shall further explain that it is not a matter of law, but merely a circumstance for the jury to 'consider in giving such weight to such testimony as in their opinion and belief it is entitled, untrammeled by any rule laid down by the court.