We think tbe evidence was sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury. Defendant’s motion to nonsuit at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, under O. S., 567, cannot be' sustained. Tbe present action is similar to Buchanan v. Furnace Co., 178 N. C., 643, where tbe law is exhaustively discussed. See Street v. Coal Co., ante, 178. Tbe defendant’s exception and assignment of error to tbe hypothetical question propounded to Dr. Abel cannot be sustained.
This Court, in Martin v. Hanes, 189 N. C., at p. 646, said: “These cases enunciate tbe principle that, while a. medical expert may not express an opinion as to a controverted fact, be may, upon tbe assumption that tbe jury shall find certain facts to be recited in a hypothetical question, express bis scientific opinion as to tbe probable effect of such facts or conditions.”
There was no error in tbe exclusion of evidence offered by defendant. We see no error in tbe charge, taking tbe same as a whole. In regard to tbe charge on damages, tbe well settled rule in this jurisdiction is that if defendant desired tbe charge more specific, be must request it by proper prayer for instruction. We find
No error.