¶1 Tbe evidence in this case and tbe questions presented are practically identical witb those in tbe case of John P. Arthur v. Henry, ante, 393, except in tbat case tbe plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for injury to bis property, compensatory and punitive, while in.this the plaintiff, who is a sister of John P. Arthur and lived in tbe bouse witb him, sues to recover damages for injury to her health.
¶2 In this action punitive damages were not awarded.
¶3 There was evidence which, if accepted by tbe jury, established tbe fact tbat tbe plaintiff was made sick and suffered in body and mind as tbe result of tbe operations of tbe defendant and of tbe Faragher Company, for whose acts tbe defendant was liable, and bis Honor was careful to exclude tbe idea tbat tbe plaintiff could recover for fright unaccompanied by physical injury.
¶4 He said to tbe jury: “Tbat mere fright is not actionable. Because a man or woman gets frightened at something, it is not actionable. If you find tbat tbe plaintiff in this cause was frightened, tbat she was put in fear, tbe court charges you tbat tbat is not actionable; but if you find tbat she was put in fear and frightened to such an extent tbat she suffered physical pain,, suffered in body and mind, and was made sick, and tbat such fright'and fear were brought about by tbe negligence of'the defendant and was its proximate cause, then tbe law says it is actionable.
¶5 “If you find tbe defendant was guilty of negligence, and tbat rocks fell about tbe bouse, and tbat thereby she was put in fear or frightened, but if you find tbat she was not made sick by reason of such fright, but her sickness was caused by other *440 causes, that ber sickness came from some other cause, and that she was not made sick by reason of this fright, and that she was made sick by some other cause than the fright, she could not recover. As I have said, mere fright is not actionable; but if she was put in fear by reason of rocks falling around, if you find they did so fall, and she became sick, and that the sickness was the immediate result of the fright, that the sickness followed from the fright, and that had it not been for stick fright and fear the sickness would not have come, then it is actionable; but if it did not flow directly from that, she would not be entitled to recover.
¶6 ■ • “Or if you find that she was not put in fear and not frightened, and not made sick by the negligence of the defendant, if such acts were negligent, then she would not be entitled to recover. If you find that she .was consulted, and that she consented that they might go on with blasting, on condition. that they would come and give her notice before the blasts were set off, and that they did give her notice, then the court charges you that she could not recover.”
¶7 ■ This follows the principle announced in Kimberly v. Howland, 143 N. C., 398, which has been affirmed in May v. Telegraph Co., ante, 416.
¶8 No error.