We bave examined tbe record in tbis case and tbe several exceptions. We find tbem to be without merit. His Honor followed tbe well settled principles of tbe law of negligence in bis instructions to tbe jury in tbis case.
No error.
Setzer v. Plank, 169 N.C. 253 (1915)
May 12, 1915
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
169 N.C. 253
JOHN SETZER v. M. L. PLANK and FORREST FLOYD, Trading as PLANK & FLOYD.
(Filed 12 May, 1915.)
Negligence.
This action to recover damages for a personal injury was tried under well settled principles relating to defendant’s negligence under the evidence and correct instructions, and no error is found.
Appeal by defendants from Adams, J., at January Term, 1915, of CLEVELAND.
Civil action, tried upon these issues:
1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of the defendant, 'as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: “Yes.”
2. Did tbe plaintiff, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis injury, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: “No.”
3. Did tbe plaintiff assume tbe risk of being injured in tbe manner in wbicb.be was injured, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: “No.”
4. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: “$100.”
Tbe defendants appealed.
No counsel for plaintiff.
Byburn & Hoey for defendant.