Boyd ex rel. Boyd v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

59 S.E.2d 785, 232 N.C. 171, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 441
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 24, 1950·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

'W’iNBOBNE, J.

If it be conceded that there is evidence tending to show that defendant was negligent as alleged in the complaint, it is clear from the testimony of plaintiff herself that she failed to exercise due care at the time and under the circumstances of her injury, and that such failure to exercise due care contributed to and was a proximate cause of her injury. The case comes within and is controlled by the principles enunciated in Godwin v. R. R., 220 N.C. 281, 17 S.E. 2d 137; Bailey v. R. R., 223 N.C. 244, 25 S.E. 2d 833; Penland v. R. R., 228 N.C. 528, 46 S.E. 2d 303; and Carruthers v. R. R., post, 183.

Hence, further elaboration on tbe subject would be only repetitious.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Boyd ex rel. Boyd v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 59 S.E.2d 785, 232 N.C. 171, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 441 (N.C. 1950).

59 S.E.2d 785 (Boyd ex rel. Boyd v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyd v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
59 S.E.2d 785 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)