Black v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad

20 S.E. 713, 115 N.C. 667
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 20 S.E. 713 (Black v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Black v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad, 20 S.E. 713, 115 N.C. 667 (N.C. 1894).

Opinions

Burwell, J.:

The control which railroad companies have over the land covered by their rights-of-way is given to them that they may properly perform their quasi public duties. They have the authority to keep the land thus subjected to their use in such condition that théir use of it will not endanger the property of others. Having this authority, they must exercise it, or else pay for such damage as comes to one who, himself being free from fault, suffers injury from a neglect to keep it in the required condition.

We think the charge of his Honor very properly presented the matter to the jury. The concluding sentence of this charge, as set out in the record, was itself a sufficient statement of the law applicable to the facts of this case.

There was a motion made before us to dismiss the action because the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegation of the complaint is that the defendant negligently permitted fire to be communicated from their engines or property, to the lands adjoining their railroad and right-of-way, by which said fire, the spread and extension thereof, plaintiff’s said turpentine was burned and destroyed.” This was a sufficient allegation of negligence on the part of defendant, resulting in damage to the plaintiff, and it was supported on the trial by evidence sufficient, if believed by the jury, to establish those facts upon which the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff depended, which are succinctly stated in the closing portion of the charge. No Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Herring v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
127 S.E. 8 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
McBee v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
87 S.E. 985 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Hardy v. . Lumber Co.
75 S.E. 855 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Hardy v. Hines Bros. Lumber
160 N.C. 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Maguire v. S. A. L. Railroad
70 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Phillips v. Railroad
50 S.E. 462 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Ins. Co. v. . R. R.
43 S.E. 548 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Insurance Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
132 N.C. 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Simpson v. Enfield Lumber Co.
42 S.E. 939 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Shields v. Norfolk & Carolina Railroad
39 S.E. 582 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Malloy v. City of Fayetteville
122 N.C. 480 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Malloy v. . Fayetteville
29 S.E. 880 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Watt v. Nevada Central Railroad
23 Nev. 154 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1896)
Watt v. Nev. Cen. R. R. Co.
46 P. 726 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1896)
Blue v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad
23 S.E. 275 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E. 713, 115 N.C. 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-aberdeen-west-end-railroad-nc-1894.