Springs v. Tallassee Power Co., 184 N.C. 425 (1922)

Nov. 29, 1922 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

184 N.C. 425

MARY HOWARD SPRINGS, Administratrix of WILLIAM E. SPRINGS, v. TALLASSEE POWER COMPANY.

(Filed 29 November, 1922.)

Instructions — Evidence—Issues—Verdict Directing.

Requested prayers for instruction tbat the jury find the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk in defendant’s favor, “if they should find the facts from all the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” are properly refused, if the evidence on the issues is conflicting and sufficient to sustain verdicts in plaintiff’s favor, in his action to recover damages for the wrongful killing of his intestate.

Appeal by defendant from Webb, J., at May Term, 1922, of UNION.

This is an action for the alleged negligent death of the plaintiff’s intestate, who was killed by the electric current of the defendant company while painting the defendant’s towers for transmission of its electric current. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.

Slack, Parlcer & Graig for plaintiff.

E. T. Gansler, B. L. Smith, and John G. Sikes for defendant.

Clark, C. J.

Tbe usual issues, in sueb cases, of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were submitted. Tbe defendant asked tbe court to instruct tbe jury as to eacb of tbe three issues, severally, as follows: “If tbe jury shall find tbe facts from all tbe evidence considered in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, they will answer this issue No.’ ”

On appeal, tbe defendant abandons all exceptions except to tbe refusal of these instructions. Upon careful examination of tbe evidence, we find that there was sufficient evidence for tbe plaintiff to go to tbe jury upon eacb of these three propositions. There was evidence to tbe contrary on eacb of these issues, but that was a matter for tbe jury. In refusing tbe peremptory instructions asked we find

No error.