Clark v. Sherrill

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Clark v. Sherrill

130 S.E.2d 290, 259 N.C. 254, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 519

DecidedApril 10, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E.2d 290 (Clark v. Sherrill) 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

Clark v. Sherrill, 130 S.E.2d 290, 259 N.C. 254, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 519 (N.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence disclosed the track in the direction from which the train approached was straight for a distance of 700 feet to 1,500 feet, according to which of the plaintiff’s witnesses made the estimate. The plaintiff testified the track was concealed by a bank and weeds to within 75 feet of the crossing. However, the evidence disclosed the obstruction above the road and above the rails varied from about two feet near the crossing to four feet near the curve. While the plaintiff’s evidence is to the effect that the tracks were obstructed, [255]*255there is no evidence from which it may be inferred the obstruction along the tracks interfered with a view of an approaching freight train. According to all the evidence, the plaintiff’s failure to see the approaching train in the bright sunlight was his own fault. Contributory negligence appears as matter of law. The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence disclosed the track in the direction from which the train approached was straight for a distance of 700 feet to 1,500 feet, according to which of the plaintiff’s witnesses made the estimate. The plaintiff testified the track was concealed by a bank and weeds to within 75 feet of the crossing. However, the evidence disclosed the obstruction above the road and above the rails varied from about two feet near the crossing to four feet near the curve. While the plaintiff’s evidence is to the effect that the tracks were obstructed, [255]*255there is no evidence from which it may be inferred the obstruction along the tracks interfered with a view of an approaching freight train. According to all the evidence, the plaintiff’s failure to see the approaching train in the bright sunlight was his own fault. Contributory negligence appears as matter of law. The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E.2d 290, 259 N.C. 254, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-sherrill-nc-1963.