Court Opinion

ID: 9845883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:29:59.015173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:24.325201
License: Public Domain

*426Judge WELLS
dissenting.
The facts of this case drive me to the conclusion that there could not have been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff because the danger he was exposed to was a hidden danger, the knowledge of which he cannot be charged with. The machine in question was designed in such a way as to conceal the latent danger. The design was such that it in no way furnished warning to plaintiff — and that therefore he could not foresee — that the feeder rollers would continue to turn with force after their source of motive power was cut off.
In the words of Justice Ervin, plaintiff’s conduct “must be judged in the light of the general principle that the law does not require a person to shape his behavior by circumstances of which he is justifiably ignorant, and the resultant particular rule that a plaintiff cannot be guilty of contributory negligence unless he acts or fails to act with knowledge and appreciation, either actual or constructive, of the danger of injury which his conduct involves.” Chaffin v. Brame, 233 N.C. 377, 380, 64 S.E. 2d 276, 279 (1951).
By inverse reasoning, my position is supported by Clark v. Roberts, 263 N.C. 336, 139 S.E. 2d 593 (1965). There, plaintiff’s hand was injured when he inserted it into a corn field chopper. In holding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, Justice Parker carefully emphasized that the plaintiff had grown up and worked on a farm and was familiar with the type of machinery by which he was injured; plaintiff knew that the shaft on which the knives were mounted would continue to turn for several minutes after the power was cut off; and that when he put his hand in, he did not know whether the knives were moving or not. In other words, Justice Parker carefully established that the plaintiff in Clark was clearly aware of the danger which caused his injury. It is only reasonable to assume that had all the evidence been to the contrary, as it is here — that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the danger —contributory negligence could not have been an issue.
Central to the existence of contributory negligence is knowledge on the part of the plaintiff of the presence of the danger:
In order that the plaintiff’s conduct may be contributory negligence . . . the plaintiff must know of the physical condi*427tion created by the defendant’s negligence and must have knowledge of such facts that, as a reasonable man, he should realize the danger involved. Furthermore, the plaintiff must intentionally expose himself to this danger. He must have the purpose to place himself within reach of it. It is not enough that his failure to exercise reasonable attention to his surroundings prevents him from observing the danger, or that lack of reasonable preparation or competence prevents him from avoiding it when the condition created by the defendant is [unjknown to him.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 466, Comment c. Since it is undisputed in the present case that the machine gave no indication from its outward appearance of the danger that lurked within, no reasonable man would have notice of the danger. Therefore, plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, be charged with exposing himself to the danger.
It is my opinion that the plaintiff here was entitled to an instruction to the jury to answer the issue of contributory negligence in his favor, and that the trial court’s failure to so charge constitutes reversible error. I would grant plaintiff a new trial on the sole issue of damages.