Court Opinion

ID: 9809024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:58:44.781453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:06.071825
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: The point is this: When a 13-year-old plaintiff, who is held competent to testify as a witness, admits on the stand, under examination by the court, “I realized that I ought not to go out in the street. ... I thought I could make it and missed it,” What is the effect of such testimony? Clearly, if this evidence be given its usual significance, the plaintiff cannot recover. He proves himself *44out of court. Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601. lie says he knowingly took a chance and lost. Stamey v. R. R., 208 N. C., 668, 182 S. E., 130. The judge so stated in charging the jury, but left it to them to say what its effect should be, simply because the plaintiff was under fourteen years of age. This is not the test. S. v. Satterfield, 207 N. C., 118, 176 S. E., 466. There is no arbitrary rule as to age. S. v. Edwards, 79 N. C., 648. See Wigmore’s Principles of Judicial Proof (2d Ed.), sec. 156. Plaintiff’s capacity to understand the situation and to appreciate the significance of his testimony was apparent to the court, for he told the jury, “If the boy had been the age of fourteen, or an adult, . . . the court would instruct you as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence.”
That the plaintiff is presumed not to have appreciated the danger at the time of the injury is conceded on all hands. Ghorley v. R. R., 189 N. C., 634, 127 S. E., 634; 20 R. C. L., 123; Note, 27 Ann. Cas., 969. The question is, May this presumption be rebutted by his own testimony? He was twelve years of age at the time of the injury and thirteen at the time of trial.
In the court’s opinion, “full faith and credit” is given the plaintiff’s testimony as it relates to the negligence of the defendant, but the self-inculpatory statements are apparently disregarded. Do the same rules of evidence apply to this case as in other trials, or is the court to abdicate and allow the jury to “take the ease and say how it is” ?
The record also discloses that the plaintiff was playing in the street, with others, in violation of an ordinance of the city of Charlotte, when he skated in front of the on-coming truck and was injured. C. S., 4174; S. v. Abernethy, 190 N. C., 768, 130 S. E., 619; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N. C., 428, 181 S. E., 338; Lloyd v. R. R., 151 N. C., 536, 66 S. E., 604.
CONNOR, J., concurs in dissent.