{
  "id": 8632050,
  "name": "ELIZABETH DUKE, by Her Next Friend, HAYWOOD DUKE, v. CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S COMMISSION, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duke ex rel. Duke v. Crippled Children's Commission, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1938-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "570",
  "last_page": "572",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 570"
    }
  ],
  "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": "203 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657541
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0331-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 4338,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7388687684046116e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8317326608616951
    },
    "sha256": "3e10429ba0955965dc91a24234d55d1e958eac2d1b5eb8c30c6a93c963217b63",
    "simhash": "1:b1eb86e817991648",
    "word_count": 714
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH DUKE, by Her Next Friend, HAYWOOD DUKE, v. CRIPPLED CHILDREN\u2019S COMMISSION, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nThe plaintiff, a minor suing by her next friend, alleges that while a patient in a children\u2019s hospital maintained and operated by the defendant she was injured by the negligence of the defendant and its agents.\nParagraph 13 of the complaint is as follows: \u201c13. That the plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that a recovery in this suit will not impair or diminish the trust properly in the hands of said corporation donated for charitable uses, and said plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that the defendant has made special arrangements to pay any and all judgments that might be rendered against it on account of its negligence or the negligence of its servants and agents.\u201d\nBefore time for answering expired the defendant lodged motion that paragraph 13 \u201cbe stricken from said complaint for that and in that the same constitutes improper pleading, is immaterial, irrelevant and prejudicial.\u201d 0. S., 537.\nThe motion was denied and defendant reserved exception and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the denial by the court of its motion to strike.\nIt has been repeatedly held by this Court that in an action for damages for a personal injury evidence that the defendant\u2019s liability for the act complained of has been insured by a third person, is ordinarily incompetent. Lytton v. Mfg. Co., 157 N. C., 331; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., 266 (269), and cases there cited; Scott v. Bryan, 210 N. C., 478, and cases there cited.\nBy the same token that evidence that the defendant is insured in a casualty company is incompetent, evidence that \u201cthe defendant has made special arrangements to pay any and all judgments that might be rendered against it on account of its negligence or the negligence of its servants and agents\u201d is incompetent \u2014 both are \u201centirely foreign to the issues raised by the pleadings.\u201d Lytton v. Mfg. Co., supra, and other cases cited.\nInasmuch as evidence in support of the allegation in paragraph 13 of the complaint would be inadmissible, it follows, under the decisions of this Court, that such allegations in the complaint should be stricken as irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial. \u201cIt is readily conceded that nothing ought to be in a complaint, or remain there over objection, which is not competent to be shown on the hearing. C. S., 506; 21 R. C. L., 452.\u201d Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N. C., 514. \u201cOn a motion to strike out, the test of relevancy of a pleading is the right of the pleader to present the facts to which the allegation relates in the evidence upon the trial.\u201d Trust Co. v. Dunlop, ante, 196.\nIt should be noted that the complaint does not allege that the defendant is claiming any immunity from liability for its torts by reason of its being a charitable institution \u2014 nor even that the defendant is a charitable institution.\nThe order of the Superior Court denying the motion of the defendant is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Smith, Wharton \u25a0& Hudgins for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH DUKE, by Her Next Friend, HAYWOOD DUKE, v. CRIPPLED CHILDREN\u2019S COMMISSION, INC.\n(Filed 14 December, 1938.)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 18\u2014\nIn an action for negligent injury, evidence that defendant has liability insurance, or \u201chas made arrangements to pay all judgments that might be rendered against it on account of negligence,\u201d is ordinarily incompetent.\n2. Pleadings \u00a7 29: Hospitals \u00a7 6 \u2014 Held: Allegations should have heen stricken out, since evidence in support thereof is incompetent.\nIn this action to recover for alleged negligent treatment received by plaintiff while a patient in defendant hospital, the complaint alleged that a recovery would not impair trust property held by defendant for charitable purposes and that defendant had special arrangements to pay all judgments rendered against it on account of negligence. The complaint did not allege that defendant is claiming immunity by reason of being a charitable institution, or even that defendant is a charitable institution. Held: Evidence in support of the allegations in regard to arrangements for payment of tort liability would not be competent, and the allegations should have been stricken out on motion aptly made as being irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial. C. S., 537.\nAppeal by the defendant from Hill, Special Judge, at September Term, 1938, of G-tjileoed.\nFrazier & Frazier for plaintiff, appellee.\nSmith, Wharton \u25a0& Hudgins for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0570-01",
  "first_page_order": 638,
  "last_page_order": 640
}