
    MARIE D. BAILEY, MINOR, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HASSELL H. BAILEY v. KENNETH REID HAYES, DECEASED, BY GERALD W. HAYES, JR., ADMINISTRATOR
    No. 713SC612
    (Filed 29 December 1971)
    1. Trial § 33 — recapitulation of plaintiff’s evidence
    The trial court did not err in its recapitulation of plaintiff’s evidence.
    2. Damages § 16 — instructions
    The trial court did not err in its instructions upon the rules for the assessment of damages for personal injuries.
    Appeal by defendant from May, Judge, 24 May 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Pitt County.
    Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her on 22 November 1968. Her evidence tended to show that she was a passenger in defendant’s vehicle at the time it collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Fourteenth Street and Highway 264 in Greenville, North Carolina. Her evidence further tended to show that she was thrown from defendant’s vehicle and suffered numerous second and third degree abrasions; that she was hospitalized for a period of ten days; that she was thereafter treated as an out patient; that she had some plastic surgery performed on her lip; and that she has permanent scarring on her knee and feet.
    Defendant stipulated that the negligence issue should be answered for the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury answered the damage issue in the sum of $18,000.00 and judgment was entered that plaintiff recover from defendant the sum of $18,000.00 and the costs of the action. Defendant appealed.
    
      James, Hite & Cavendish, by M. E. Cavendish, for plaintiff.
    
    
      Gaylord & Singleton, by L. W. Gaylord, Jr., and E. Burt Aycock, Jr., for defendant.
    
   BROCK, Judge.

Defendant’s first seven assignments of error are directed to seven different portions of the judge’s charge to the jury wherein he was recapitulating plaintiff’s evidence. The evidence was not objected to and was1 properly admitted. The judge’s recapitulations are accurate. These assignments of error are feckless.

Defendant’s assignments of error numbers 8, 9, and 10 are directed to the judge’s charge wherein he was explaining the rules respecting the assessment of damages for personal injury. The explanations given by the judge are correct. These assignments of error are without merit.

We have considered defendant’s remaining assignments of error and contentions and find them to be without merit. No prejudcial error has been shown.

No error.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.  