Court Opinion

ID: 9810743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:57:13.636474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:10.768314
License: Public Domain

ClaRK, C. J.,
dissenting: I concur in what is so admirably said by Mr. Justice IJoke. "Whether the proximate cause-of the plaintiff’s injury was his owning a “foolish” little horse, over which he lost control, and which backed the buggy and its occupant up a steep hill against the car, or whether it was the act of the defendant’s servant in crushing into the buggy with the energies of steam and the weight of a heavy train of cars, which, notwithstanding he had under perfect control, and with full knowledge that the plaintiff could no.t control his horse, was a matter of fact eminently for a jury to decide. If “only one inference could be drawn” it would be that the proximate cause was the vastly greater power of steam which was under the control of the defendant’s servant. In this collision between the backing horse and the moving train, not only was the impact of the latter the greater force, but there was negligence on the part of the defendant and none on the part of the plaintiff. How much of the damage was due to the neglect and default of the defendant was a matter which only a jury can determine. If there had been no negligence by the defendant, the injury would have caused it no liability, but the defendant’s negligence is clear. In Craft v. Railroad, 136 N. C., 49, the court holds that “on a motion for nonsuit the evidence of the plaintiff must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to him, and if there is more than a scintilla of evidence tending to prove the plaintiff’s contentions, the question must be left to the jury, who alone can pass upon the weight of the testimony and the credibility of witnesses.” To the same purport are Cox v. Railroad, 123 N. C., 604; Coley v. Railroad, 129 N. C., 407; 57 L. R. A., 817; Hopkins v. Railroad, 131 N. C., 463, and Butts v. Railway, 133 N. C., 82.
In Purnell v. Railway, 122 N. C., 832, the court holds that “a motion of nonsuit is substantially a demurrer to the *482plaintiff’s evidence * * * Every fact which the plaintiff’s evidence proved or tended to prove must be taken by the court to be proved. It must be taken in the strongest light as against the defendant.” The same, view is taken in Printing Co. v. Raleigh, 126 N. C., 516; Gibbs v. Lyon, 95 N. C., 146; Springs v. Schenck, 99 N. C., 551; 6 Am. St. Rep., 552. And in Snider v. Newell, 132 N. C., 614, Connor, J., speaking for the court, says: “The demurrer to the evidence admits the truth of the plaintiff’s testimony, together with every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom most favorable to the plaintiff. Brittain v. Westhall, 135 N. C., 492.”
The theoretical proposition that the only inference which could reasonably be drawn was that the causa causans lay with the little horse, backing buggy and driver up hill, is met by the fact that two members of this court draw a different inference. There is no place to apply a theory when the foundation fact, which would deprive the plaintiff of the sacred right of trial by jury, is lacking.
The Constitution, Art. I, sec. 19, declares that “the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.” The guaranty of the right of trial by jury is traced back with pride to the words of Magna Charta, “legale judicium parium suorumThe disparity of power between John and his armed barons was not great, and indeed at Runymede, the latter were the stronger. If the right of trial by a jury of one’s peers should have been guaranteed to the barons against the king, certainly it should be still more sacred when the controversy, as here, is between a citizen of humble means more than 80 years of age, on the one hand, and on the other a powerful corporation with its roads extending into many States, with (as we know from the official reports of both State and Federal governments) nearly $50,000,000 of annual receipts, more than $16,000,000 of which are in excess of its operating expenses, and with influence extending to *483every sphere of activity, State and Federal. If ever the right of trial by jury should be held sacred, it is between litigants of such disproportionate power.
Constitutional guaranties, like that of a trial by jury, are the necessities of the weak and humble. The great and powerful can get their dues (if not more) without such aid. Therefore, such right should be always sacredly guarded and never dispensed with. If a judge can dispense with a jury trial because he thinks that upon the evidence the verdict ought not to be in favor of the plaintiff, then the judge, not the jury, tries the case and weighs the evidence, whether it is “reasonably sufficient” to justify a recovery. Why carefully forbid the judge to express an opinion “whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved,” Code, see. 413, if the judge can decide that the “evidence is not sufficient” to justify a verdict for the plaintiff and refuse to submit the cause to the jury-
The ancient landmark was that if there is “any evidence beyond a scintilla” either party has a right to have the jury pass upon the evidence, leaving it to the judge in the interest of justice to set aside the verdict if palpably erroneous. Jordan v. Lassiter, 51 N. C., 133. This was fully debated and reiterated in Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451, where Bynum, J., with great foresight and to his lasting honor, in a dissenting opinion of great force, combatted the “new and dangerous proposition” as he termed it, which was intimated by the majority opinion that “any evidence” could be construed to mean such “as reasonably to satisfy the jury.” As he clearly perceived and earnestly insisted, this would take the right of trial by jury out of the rank of a constitutional guaranty and make it discretionary with the judge.
“Power is ever stealing from the many to the few.” Here, two out of five members of this court are of opinion that there was not only evidence, but indeed that the weight of the evidence was in favor of the plaintiff. The counsel for the de*484fendant railroad evidently thought that the jury would also find the facts against him, else he would not have been so anxious to prevent their being submitted to the jury. In the differing opinion of the members of this court as to what the evidence proves, the actual and real result is that the defendant is exonerated by the opinion of a bare majority of five men as to the weight of evidence, and the plaintiff does not receive the benefit of his constitutional right to have the weight of the evidence passed upon by a jury of twelve men “of the vicinage.” Tet in cases of any doubt, the citizen should always be granted the protection claimed.