Court Opinion

ID: 9809099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:00:47.419959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:53.049671
License: Public Domain

Clark, G. J.,
dissenting. Concurring in the view of the' Court that “the same legal result would follow with respect to the plaintiff’s right to recover and the measure of damages, whether the injury was caused by the negligence of the engineer or of the porter,” it seems to me that it is immaterial which it was, and no detriment was caused by the jury not finding specifically which servant of the company was to blame. The defendant was to blame in either ease, and that is all the plaintiff is called upon to prove. The jury have found the fact on which the plaintiff’s right to recover depends, to-wit, that he was injured by the negligence of the defendant in alighting from its cars at Palmyra at the time mentioned and being thrown to the ground. The plaintiff could state the circumstances in-his complaint in the different phases to meet the proof that might be offered (Simpson v. Lumber Co., 133 N. C., 95), but that does not require an issue as to each, but the one issue “whether the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint” should be sufficient, especially since the defendant did not ask for another issue nor except to those submitted.
Had the party been killed and his personal representative had alleged, from uncertainty of evidence, the different phases besides the two in this complaint that he got off on *108the right-hand side of the ear and on the left-hand side, off the front end of the car and off the rear end, and several other variant circumstances, must there be an issue on each? It seems there is but one issuaJble fact, the injury by the negligence of the defendant at the time and place-, and the difference in statement of tire attendant circumstances is merely evidential matter. I think there was no error committed by the Judge below.