Bethea v. Raleigh & Augusta Railroad
Bethea v. Raleigh & Augusta Railroad
Opinion of the Court
1. The Court did not give the instructions asked in the very language of the request, but they were substantially given, though in different language. The Court is not bound to give instructions in the words of the prayer, but it is sufficient if they be given in substance. This is too well settled to need citation of authority. Upon the question of negligence on the part of the defendant, we can see no substantial difference between the instructions asked and 'those given.
2. The instruction asked in regard to contributory negligence was properly refused. There was certainly no such proximate or concurrent negligence on the part of the plaintiff as to bar his right to recover damages. Proctor v. Railroad, 72 N. C., 579; Horner v. Williams, 100 N. C., 230.
There is no error. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STEPHEN BETHEA v. RALEIGH AND AUGUSTA RAILROAD COMPANY
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Killing Live Stock — Presumption—Specific Instructions — Exception to Judge’s Charge — Contributory Negligence. 1. Failure to give specific instructions when not asked, even though proper in themselves, is not the subject of exception. 2. When plaintiff permitted his steer to leave home and wander upon defendant’s track, he is not, therefore, guilty of contributory negligence. 3. The law presumes negligence when the action is brought within six months of the killing, but this presumption may be rebutted by showing there was none in fact. 4. Substantial compliance with a request to charge is all that can be required.