{ "id": 8660127, "name": "JOHN GRAY, Administrator of Katie Gray, v. H. McD. LITTLE", "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Little", "decision_date": "1900-04-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "385", "last_page": "388", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. 385" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "122 N. C., 1007", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8663384 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/1007-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653096 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N. C., 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682457 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/77/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 1007", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8663384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/1007-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 319, "char_count": 5780, "ocr_confidence": 0.353, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4157867404961467e-07, "percentile": 0.8004572853475241 }, "sha256": "8d0506627a687b29d611e965653f1c4ac837a86b52d6ccad8eb48f4887d21386", "simhash": "1:a9088fd0cc64a779", "word_count": 954 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:28.883277+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN GRAY, Administrator of Katie Gray, v. H. McD. LITTLE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Faircloth, C. J.\nThe defendant is a practicing physician and surgeon, and was called to attend the plaintiff\u2019s wife in her child-bed sickness. The evidence is not in the record in this Oonrt, and there is no exception to anything at the trial, except that part of the charge copied below.\nThe allegation is that the defendant, by his careless, negligent and unskillful conduct, caused great pain and injury to the plaintiff\u2019s intestate (wife), and that by inhuman and cruel treatment by the defendant, the child\u2019s death resulted after delivery, and the death of the wife was hastened and accelerated. The answer denies these allegations. The second issue is, \u201cWas the death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by the defendant\u2019s carelessness and inhuman and \u2022cruel treatment as alleged ?\u201d The jury answered, \u201cYes, accelerated.\u201d The third issue is, \u201cWhat damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover ?\u201d Answer. \u201cNominal damages \u2014 5 \u2022cents.\u201d \u2022>.\n.His Honor in charging the jury substantially followed the \u00abcharge approved in Benton v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 1007, and in addition thereto instructed the jury in these words:\n\u201cBut in considering the second issue as to' the cause of the death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate,if von find that the death of the intestate was only hastened or accelerated by the acts or omissions of the defendant as alleged, then you are instructed that, in answering the third issue as to damages, you can not award the plaintiff any more than nominal damage, that is, such small sum as for instance 5 cents, or other small sum, because in such state of the case if the death of the intestate was only hastened or accelerated by the defendant, you could only respond to this issue in nominal damages.\u201d (Exception.) The error in that part of the charge lies in considering the act expediting death, as a mere technical injury. That is not the language of the law, nor of the text-books on criminal matters. There are instances in the commdn law reports where the accelerator paid the severest penalty known to the law. We know of no decision of a final appellate court in this country declaring otherwise.\nWe will only refer to a few of our own cases which are in point on this question\u2014Lewis v. City of Raleigh, 77 N. C., 229; Coley v. Statesville, 121 N. C., 301, and others cited in No. 5024, Womack\u2019s Digest. It follows that the prayer referred to in the defendant\u2019s second exception w\u2019as proper for the jury.\nConsidering the verdict on the second issue, and such evidence as authorized the jury to make that response, it seems fortunate for the defendant that he is not on trial for a higher criminal offense, as well as to answer in an action for damages.\nThere must be a new trial as to damages only, on the third issue.\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "Faircloth, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. B. F. Long, F. A. Linney, J. H. Burke, and J. L. Gwaltney, filed brief for appellant.", "Appellee not represented in this Court." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN GRAY, Administrator of Katie Gray, v. H. McD. LITTLE.\n(Decided April 17, 1900.)\nMalpractice \u2014 Careless, Inhuman, Cruel Treatment \u2014 Death Accelerated \u2014 Damages, Nominal, Compensatory, Pu/ni-tive \u2014 Judge's Charger-Partial New Trial in Respect to Damages.\n1. Expediting the-deatli of a patient by carelessness, inhuman and cruel treatment on the part of the attending physician, is not a mere technical injury, compensated for by nominal damages, but calls for compensatory and even punitive damages at the hands of the jury.\n2. Where the error committed below, and appealed from, relates to the measure of damages only, a new trial will be awarded only upon the issue relating to damages.\nOrvu. AotioN for damages at the hands of the defendant, a practicing physician, for occasioning, as alleged,the death of bis patient, Katie Gray, intestate of plaintiff, by mal-prac-tiee and cruel treatment, tried before Robinson, J., at February Term, 1900, of Altsxastdjer Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff, husband of the deceased, had employed the defendant, Dr. Little, to attend his wife in her confinement.\nThe first issue related to the employment, and was by consent answered, \u201cYes.\u201d\nThe second issue: Was the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by defendant\u2019s carelessness, and inhuman and cruel treatment, as alleged ?\nThis issue was controverted \u2014 there was conflicting evidence relating thereto. ;\nThe response of the jury was: \u201cYes, accelerated.\u201d * The third issue related to damages: What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover ?\nUpon this issue, his Honor, after reciting the evidence relating to the age, habits, qualifications, etc., of the deceased, gave tire instruction approved in Benton v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 1007, to which there was no exception.\nHis Honor gave an additional charge, which is recited in the opinion, to the effect that if the jury should find that the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate was only accelerated by the acts or omissions of the defendant, as alleged, then the verdict of the jury should be for nominal damages only.\nTo this additional charge the plaintiff excepted.\nThe plaintiff asked the following special instruction:\n\u201cIf you find from the facts, that the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate was due to wilful negligence on the part of defendant, or from wilful misconduct, cruelty or inhuman treatment to' her, committed under circumstances that showed gross negligence, the plaintiff would then be entitled to recover not only compensatory damages, but also punitive damages.\u201d\nThis instruction was refused, and plaintiff excepted.\nThe response of the jury to the third issue was: \u201cNominal damages \u2014 5 cents.\u201d\nJudgment was rendered agreeably to the issues and responses thereto, in favor of plaintiff.\nAppeal by the plaintiff upon exceptions to the instruction of his Honor, and his refusal of instructions upon the issue of damages.\nMessrs. B. F. Long, F. A. Linney, J. H. Burke, and J. L. Gwaltney, filed brief for appellant.\nAppellee not represented in this Court." }, "file_name": "0385-01", "first_page_order": 423, "last_page_order": 426 }