Court Opinion

ID: 9809507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:15:36.076603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:25.138492
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.,
concurring in result: I am not now prepared to hold against the rulings of Judge. Allen in this ease, but before determining whether the intervention of Carpenter “insulated” the alleged negligence of the defendant, I prefer that the jury should pass on all the issues, and therefore consent to a new trial. I agree that it would have been better had the tidal proceeded and a voluntary nonsuit not been taken. If that had been done, the entire case would have been before us, and all rulings excepted to duly considered. If it should be found that Carpenter propped the pole up with a rotten or insufficient prop so that it broke and fell, or *467that he placed the prop so far out that it was knocked out of place by the wheel of the buggy, or that he otherwise did the work in so negligent a manner that the pole fell on the intestate in consequence of his negligence, I should have no difficulty in holding Carpenter’s act the immediate cause of the injury and that the defendant would not be liable.
Again, I think there is evidence of contributory negligence upon the part of the intestate. The plaintiff may be the beneficiary of a recovery and come within the ruling in Davis’ case, 136 N. C., 115. Upon the whole I think it best to order a new trial, to the end that the jury may pass on all the issues.