TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Martin v. Spencer

Mrs. James Martin v. R. T. Spencer.

Martin v. Spencer, 18 S.E.2d 703 (N.C. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 25, 1942
Judges
Stacy
Citations
18 S.E.2d 703221 N.C. 281942 N.C. LEXIS 379

Opinion of the Court — Stacy

Stacy, O. J.

The present case is controlled by the decision in Kirby v. Stores Corp., 210 N. C., 808 , 188 S. E., 625 , under which it was tried, unless the absence of evidence to fix the defendant with knowledge of plaintiff’s enceinte condition brings it within the principles announced in Anthony v. Protective Union, 206 N. C., 7 , 173 S. E., 6 . This single point of difference is not regarded as capitally important or of sufficient divergence to change the result.

May v. Tel. Co., 157 N. C., 416 , 72 S. E., 1057 . There is evidence of a forcible trespass and also trespass to the person of the plaintiff. 63 C. J., 891. Hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld on authority of the Kirby case.

“But if there may he a recovery for physical injuries resulting from fright wrongfully caused by the defendant, it would seem that an assault committed in the view of a woman whose presence is known, especially upon a member of her family, was an act of negligence towards the woman, a failure to exercise the due care towards her which the occasion and circumstances required, and was therefore a legal wrong against her which will support an action, if damage follows.” 1 Cooley on Torts (3rd), p. 98.

The exceptions addressed to other phases of the trial, admission and exclusion of evidence and portions, of the charge call for no elaboration. They are not sustained.

No error.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (defendant directed verbal abuse at plaintiff and engaged in altercation with plaintiff’s brother in a dispute over a boundary; held, plaintiff could recover for a miscarriage which, according to her evidence, resulted from “fright occasioned by the conduct of the defendant.”)
1979: 11981: 11990: 119792026peak 1979 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dickens v. Puryear276 S.E.2d 325 (N.C. 1981)
  2. Stanback v. Stanback254 S.E.2d 611 (N.C. 1979)
  3. Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A.395 S.E.2d 85 (N.C. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A.395 S.E.2d 85 (N.C. 1990)
  2. Dickens v. Puryear276 S.E.2d 325 (N.C. 1981)
  3. Stanback v. Stanback254 S.E.2d 611 (N.C. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corp., 188 S.E. 625 (N.C. 1936) 24
Anthony v. Teachers Protective Union, 173 S.E. 6 (N.C. 1934) 14
May v. Western Union Tel. Co., 72 S.E. 1059 (N.C. 1911) 22
Johnson v. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio R.R., 72 S.E. 1057 (N.C. 1911) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list