{
  "id": 11269147,
  "name": "JOHN D. BROWN v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "136",
  "last_page": "138",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. 136"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 N. C., 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Mass., 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2080674
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/75/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5134,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.1999103047230975e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26791581285240956
    },
    "sha256": "7984e37a32b200f78278a6021e06feba7dcb9a57346cc733cbb79431a5104798",
    "simhash": "1:e60c48243355c316",
    "word_count": 851
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN D. BROWN v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beown, J.\nTbe plaintiff was conductor of .a train, and seriously injured in a bead-on collision between bis train and another train on defendant\u2019s railway. Tbe defendant admits its liability and states three assignments of error, relating exclusively to tbe issue as to damages.\n1. The plaintiff, examined in bis own behalf, was permitted to testify that, since the collision, in addition to: tbe bodily injury received, be suffered from extreme nervousness and \u201cnightmares.\u201d ITe was asked to describe the nightmares, and defendant objected. Witness says: \u201cI had collisions and terrible happenings like that, and would have to be waked by somebody else, and sometimes would find myself jumping, and it would throw me into such a nervous condition I couldn\u2019t go to sleep for hours.\u201d Q. \u201cITow frequently have they troubled you since last July ?\u201d A. \u201cI suppose they would average two or three times a week.\u201d Q. \u201cDid you ever, previous to your trouble that occurred on the train that night, have any trouble similar to the one you have detailed to the jury since that night ?\u201d A. \u201cI have not.\u201d (Objection to this last question and answer sustained). Q. \u201cWhat was the condition of your health previous to that accident ?\u201d A. \u201cI was a sound, healthy man.\u201d\nThe testimony admitted by his Honor is not the declaration of the injured party, made post litem motam, offered in evidence through the medium of .another witness, and generally held to be inadmissible. 3 Wigmore, 1722; Chapin v. Inhabitants of Marlborough, 75 Mass., 244. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for defendant apply to such declarations, and not to the direct personal testimony of the injured party himself. The evidence of the physician examined tends to prove that, as a direct consequence of the blow on the head and the other physical injuries received in the \u201cwreck,\u201d the plaintiff suffered from serious nervous derangement, called traumatic neurasthenia. It was, therefore, competent to prove by the plaintiff, as corroborative of the medical theory, the physical manifestations of such disease and how it affected him, for the purpose of establishing the nature, character and extent of his injuries. 13 Cyc., 194.\n2. The plaintiff\u2019s wife was permitted -to testify as follows: \u201cOn an average of three or four times a week I have to1 arouse him from sleep on account of those terrible nightmares. He suffers terribly with that limb and deafness in one ear. It did not occur before the accident.\u201d Q. \u201cDid you notice any of those troubles before the accident ?\u201d A. \u201cNo, sir; none at all.\u201d Q. \u201cYou say lie suffers from them frequently?\u201d A. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d Q. \u201cState to bis Honor and the jury wbat the character of those nightmares is \u2014 how they manifest themselves.\u201d (Objection by defendant overruled). A. \u201cHe hollers out and seems to be in a stupor. Calling him doesn\u2019t arouse him at all. I have had to go to him and shake him \u2014 \u25a0 move him around \u2014 before he aroused from them.\u201d\nThe same observation applies to this assignment of error as to the first. The testimony does not consist of declarations of the plaintiff constituting in ,any degree a narrative of a past transaction.\nIt is the testimony of the wife of what she observed herself, and not what she heard her husband say, and tends strongly to corroborate the medical expert that plaintiff suffered from nervous disorder.\n3. The third and last assignment of error, relating to the charge of the court, is not stated in the brief, .and is, therefore, deemed to be abandoned. We have, nevertheless, examined the instructions given the jury upon the issue of damage, and find them to be a very lucid and correct exposition of the law as laid down by this Court in repeated decisions. Wallace v. Railroad, 104 N. C., 449; Ruffin v. Railroad, 142 N. C., 129.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bellamy & Bellamy and Herbert McOlammy for plaintiff.",
      "J. D. Bellamy & Son for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN D. BROWN v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 18 March, 1908).\n1. Damages \u2014 Declarations, when Competent \u2014 Personal Injury \u2014 Subsequent Suffering \u2014 Evidence.\nWhile the declaration of the plaintiff, in a suit for damages for personal injury, is not competent evidence when given by another witness, it is not objectionable when given by the plaintiff in person, and he will be permitted to testify that since the injury was inflicted he had suffered from extreme nervousness and \u201cnightmares.\u201d\n2. Damages \u2014 Declarations, when Competent \u2014 Personal Injury \u2014 Subsequent Suffering \u2014 Evidence\u2014Expert.\nEvidence is competent tending to show that, since the injury complained of, and not before, the plaintiff has suffered from nervousness and excessive \u201cnightmares,\u201d as corroborative of the expert evidence of a physician regarding the effects of the bodily injury received.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Assignment of Error \u2014 Abandoned\u2014Brief.\nAn assignment of error, on appeal to the Supreme Court, not stated in the brief of appellant will be deemed abandoned.\nActioN' for damages for personal injury, tried before Biggs, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1907, of New TIanoyeb.\nDefendant appealed. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court.\nBellamy & Bellamy and Herbert McOlammy for plaintiff.\nJ. D. Bellamy & Son for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0136-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 176
}