Carter v. . Bailey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Carter v. . Bailey

20 S.E.2d 58, 221 N.C. 278, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 454

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 S.E.2d 58 (Carter v. . Bailey) 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

Carter v. . Bailey, 20 S.E.2d 58, 221 N.C. 278, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 454 (N.C. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly received by plaintiff while in act of boarding a moving truck of defendant resulting from actionable negligence of employee of defendant. Defendant denies (1) authority of his employee to invite plaintiff to ride, and (2) negligence of his employee in operation of truck, and pleads contributory negligence of plaintiff.

From judgment as of nonsuit at close of all the evidence plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error. 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

Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly received by plaintiff while in act of boarding a moving truck of defendant resulting from actionable negligence of employee of defendant. Defendant denies (1) authority of his employee to invite plaintiff to ride, and (2) negligence of his employee in operation of truck, and pleads contributory negligence of plaintiff.

From judgment as of nonsuit at close of all the evidence plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.E.2d 58, 221 N.C. 278, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-bailey-nc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack