Frazier v. Wilkes.

43 S.E. 1004, 132 N.C. 437, 1903 N.C. LEXIS 311
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 28, 1903·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts in the case come clearly within the language of Justice Montgomery speaking for the court in Raiford v. Railroad, 130 N. C., 597: “No act or omission, though resulting in damage, can be deemed actionable negligence unless the one responsible could, by the exercise of ordinary care, under all the circumstances, have foreseen that it might result in damage to some- one.” This is one of those *438 misfortunes against wbicb no reasonable human foresight could have made provision.

Affirmed.

Walker, J., having been of counsel did not sit on tho hearing of this case.

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

Frazier v. Wilkes., 43 S.E. 1004, 132 N.C. 437, 1903 N.C. LEXIS 311 (N.C. 1903).

43 S.E. 1004 (Frazier v. Wilkes.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lassiter v. Seaboard Air Line Railway
64 S.E. 202 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Fuller v. Railroad
53 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)