Court Opinion

ID: 9809244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:04:50.777845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:34.766156
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: With the ruling on the exception to the charge, there is no debate. This is correct under the decisions cited.
Unfortunate and distressing as the accident in this case was, a careful perusal of the record leaves me with the impression that the exception addressed to the refusal of the court to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit should likewise be sustained, if not upon the principal question of liability, then upon the ground of contributory negligence. Powers v. Sternberg, 213 N. C., 41, 195 S. E., 88; Davis v. Jeffreys, 197 N. C., 712, 150 S. E., 488. Plaintiff’s intestate’s negligence, in order to bar a recovery, need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury. It is enough if it contribute to the injury. Wright v. Grocery Co., 210 N. C., 462, 187 S. E., 564.
BaRNhill and WiNBORNE, JJ., concur in this opinion.