• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

David G. Schiller, Attorney at Law

Raleigh Employment Law and Litigation Attorney

  • 304 E. Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27601
  • 919-789-4677
  • Employment Law
    • Discrimination
    • Equal Pay
    • ERISA
    • FMLA
    • Non-competition Agreements
    • REDA
    • Retaliation
    • Retirement Benefits
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Social Security Disability
    • State Employees
    • Unemployment Benefits
    • Unpaid Wages
    • Whistleblower
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Wrongful Discharge
  • Family Law
    • Absolute Divorce
    • Alimony
    • Family Law Appeals
    • Child Custody
    • Child Support
    • Domestic Violence
    • Mediation
    • Name Changes
    • Post Separation Support
    • Premarital Agreements
    • Property Division
    • Separation Agreements
    • Torts (Alienation of Affections)
  • Litigation
    • Class Actions
    • Deceptive Trade Practices
    • Defective Products
    • False Claims Act
    • Personal Injury
  • Contact
    • Contact Form – Employment
    • Contact Form – State Employees
  • Bio

Carter v. Bradford

Carter v. Bradford, 126 S.E.2d 158, 257 N.C. 481 (N.C., 1962)
Page 158

126 S.E.2d 158

257 N.C. 481

Marie Thompson CARTER
v.
Joseph Charles BRADFORD.

No. 740

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 15, 1962

William E. Timberlake, Lumberton, Nance, Barrington, Collier & Singleton, by James R. Nance, Fayetteville, for plaintiff, appellee.
Johnson, Biggs & Britt, by I. M. Biggs, Lumberton, for defendant, appellant.
HIGGINS, Justice.
The trial court properly denied the motions for nonsuit. The evidence permitted an inference of defendant’s negligence in closing the door to the vehicle while the plaintiff ‘was in the act of sitting down.’ At the time, her hand was on the cowl against which the heavy steel door fitted snugly. At the time of the injury, the afternoon of August 24, 1958, the plaintiff was 64 years old. Ordinary care under the circumstances would seem to require the defendant to ascertain the door could be closed in safety before closing it. This he did not do.
The defendant relies heavily on Patterson v. Moffitt, 236 N.C. 405, 72 S.E.2d 863, 34 A.L.R.2d 169. The cases are readily distinguishable. In Moffitt the plaintiff was riding in the rear seat. It was dark. The defendant, driver, closed the left front door which caught the plaintiff’s fingers as he was getting out by the left rear door. Here, it was daylight. The defendant closed the door by which the plaintiff had entered and at the time she was ‘leaning over’ in the act of taking her seat.
[257 N.C. 484] The plaintiff had been a typist and bookkeeper for 35 years. She testified: ‘I have had to do everything with my left hand. * * * I can make very little use of my right hand at this time. * * * Prior to this time I was doing all my housework and everything with my right hand.’ The testimony to which objection was made involved her statement that from the date of her injury to the date of her testimony she had lost 90 per cent of the use of her right hand. The defendant insists this evidence involves the expression of opinion which plaintiff is not qualified to give and that the objection should have been sustained on that ground. However, a lay witness may express opinion about his present state of health, ability to do work, etc. Stansbury on Evidence, § 129; Lee v. New York Life Ins. Co., 188 N.C. 538, 125 S.E. 186. ‘The ability of a party to perform physical or mental labor is not a question of such exclusively technical significance as to permit expert testimony to be given conclusive effect.’ Bulluck v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 200 N.C. 642, 158 S.E. 185.
The plaintiff, a typist and bookkeeper, was in a better position than any other person to know what she had done with her right hand prior to the injury and what she was able to do with it afterwards. The testimony does not attempt to project the disability or to anticipate its future effect. She was merely testifying as to how the injury had handicapped her to the date of the testimony. Its admission was not error.
The evidence presented issues for the jury. These were answered in favor of the plaintiff upon competent testimony and after a charge that is free from valid objection.
No error.

Primary Sidebar

The Office

The office is conveniently located in downtown Raleigh across from the Governor’s Mansion, with parking available on the street and in the lot behind the building.

304 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601

Attorney David G. Schiller is licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Attorney Schiller provides the information on these pages as a public service. Information contained in these pages is not intended as, and should not be taken as, legal advice. The use of the information provided in these pages should not be taken as establishing any contractual or other form of attorney-client relationship between Attorney Schiller and the reader or user of this information. Every case that the firm describes on this website was based on its unique facts. These results do not predict outcome in future cases.

Copyright © 2025 David G. Schiller, Attorney at Law · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme

  • 304 E. Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27601
  • 919-789-4677
  • Employment Law
  • Family Law
  • Litigation
  • Contact
  • Bio