Freedman v. Sadler

90 S.E.2d 380, 243 N.C. 186, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 565
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 30, 1955·Published

Opinion

Joi-iNSON, J.

Our examination of the plaintiff’s evidence leaves the impression it was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of actionable negligence. Decision here is controlled by the principles explained in these decisions: Caughron v. Walker, ante, 153; Blalock v. Hart, 239 N.C. 475, 80 S.E. 2d 373; Hawes v. Refining Co., 236 N.C. 643, 74 S.E. 2d 17; Johnson v. Bell, 234 N.C. 522, 67 S.E. 2d 658.

Since the case goes back for retrial, we refrain from further discussion of the evidence and the applicable principles of law.

The judgment below is

Reversed.

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

Freedman v. Sadler, 90 S.E.2d 380, 243 N.C. 186, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 565 (N.C. 1955).

90 S.E.2d 380 (Freedman v. Sadler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hawes v. Atlantic Refining Co.
74 S.E.2d 17 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Blalock v. Hart
80 S.E.2d 373 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Johnson v. Bell
67 S.E.2d 658 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Blalock v. Hart
80 S.E.2d 373 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)