Gibbs v. Southern Railway Co.
This text of 156 S.E. 138 (Gibbs v. Southern Railway Co.) 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.
Opinion
What duty does a railroad company owe to a person upon its platform, who has no business upon the premises and is there exclusively for his own convenience?
The injury complained of happened in broad daylight and the moving gang plank was in full view of the plaintiff if he had been exercising any care for his own safety. At most the plaintiff was a bare or permissive licensee, and there is no evidence that the injury resulted from wilful or wanton negligence. Therefore, by virtue of both reason and authority the ruling of the trial judge was correct. Quantz v. R. R., 137 N. C., 136, 49 S. E., 79; Peterson v. R. R., 143 N. C., 260, 55 S. E., 618.
The facts do not bring this case within the principle announced in Brigman v. Construction Co., 192 N. C., 791, 136 S. E., 125, or Jones v. R. R., 199 N. C., 1.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 S.E. 138, 200 N.C. 49, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-southern-railway-co-nc-1930.