Carter ex rel. Carter v. Bailey

221 N.C. 278
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 6, 1942·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If it should be conceded that there is evidence of negligence, and of authority of the employee of defendant, Hayes v. Creamery Co., 195 N. C., 113, 141 S. E., 340, plaintiff, by his own testimony, brings himself within the general applicable rule that passengers who are injured while attempting to get on or off a moving train cannot recover for injury. Browne v. R. R., 108 N. C., 34, 12 S. E., 958; Carter v. R. R., 165 N. C., 244, 81 S. E., 321; Stamey v. R. R., 208 N. C., 668, 182 S. E., 130; Wingate v. R. R., 220 N. C., 251, 17 S. E. (2d), 6.

Affirmed.

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

Carter ex rel. Carter v. Bailey, 221 N.C. 278 (N.C. 1942).

221 N.C. 278 (Carter ex rel. Carter v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Browne v. . R. R.
12 S.E. 958 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
Wingate v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad
17 S.E.2d 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Carter v. . R. R.
81 S.E. 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Hayes v. Pine State Creamery
141 S.E. 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Stamey v. Southern Railway Co.
182 S.E. 130 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Browne v. Raleigh & Gaston Railroad
108 N.C. 34 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)