Tomlin, a guest passenger in a car driven by Mote, was injured when the vehicle ran off the road and into a culvеrt. The defendant appeals from a verdict for the plaintiff in the ensuing personal injury action.
1. When requests for admission are made, the matter is deemed admitted unless denied by written answer within 30 days. "Any matter admitted under this seсtion is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the *617 admission . . . the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudicе him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.” Code § 81A-136 (b). It follows that where the defendant requested admission of a handwritten statement signed by the plaintiff in which the plaintiff exonerated the defendant by stating that he had swerved to the right to avoid an oncoming car, an answer filed more than 30 days thereafter, admitting the statement had been given but denying its truth, was properly stricken, and the plaintiff could not thereafter "withdraw the admission” excеpt by convincing the judge (a) that the merits of the case would be subserved, and (b) the defendant’s defense on thе merits would not be prejudiced.
Both these conditions were met. Prior to the request for admissions above rеferred to the defendant’s attorney in an excess of zeal had made requests for admission of the faсts set out in the plaintiffs out of court statement, and the plaintiff had already replied that he was incorrеct in stating that Mote swerved because of an oncoming vehicle. Thus, at best, the defendant had two. cоntradictory answers which canceled each other out. The objection was raised by the defendant’s attorney after the defendant admitted on cross examination that he had gone to sleep at thе wheel, that the plaintiff could not use the defendant’s testimony to contradict the plaintiffs admission.
"The clear intent of this section was to give the trial court discretion to permit parties to respond acсurately and truthfully to requests with a view toward establishing uncontested facts that go to the merits of the case.” A
& D Barrel &c. Co. v. Fuqua,
2. Exceptions were madе to the instructions regarding compensation for lost past and future earnings on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove such loss. The plaintiff was injured December 10, 1972. He was a carpenter and contractor. His earnings prior to injury had been close to $10,000 and $12,000 for the years 1971 and 1972; thereafter, he earned nothing except a small amount on a contract completed by his brother. There was medical testimony as to his injuries and permanent disability. His age was 38 years. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the instructions given.
Jones v. Hutchins,
3. Objection was made tо the instructions on pain and suffering, as well as to loss of future earnings, on the ground that, the evidence having shown that the plaintiff sustained a subsequent injury in a wreck occurring in 1974, the jury was not specifically reminded that they could nоt recover in this case for losses attributable to the later injury. No request for such instructions was made. The instruсtions given were legally correct. The court did charge: "The plaintiff in this case under no circumstancеs can recover damages against the defendant, unless the defendant and operator of the mоtor vehicle was guilty of what is known as gross negligence, and if guilty of gross negligence that must be the proximate сause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff. . . By proximate cause is meant the efficient producing cause. . . а natural and continuing sequence unbroken by any new cause producing an event
*619
and without which the event wоuld not have occurred . .. If under the evidence you find that . . . his injury was proximately caused by the gross negligence of the defendant, then the form of your verdict would be” etc. The jury was alerted to the fact that they were to consider only injury of which the defendant’s gross negligence was found to be the proximate cause. "In the absence of request, the trial judge was not bound to point out and exclude specific matter which thе jury might not consider in the ascertainment of damages.
See Powell v. Augusta & S. R. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.