Gibbs v. Southern Railway Co.

156 S.E. 138, 200 N.C. 49, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 20
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 19, 1930·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Brogden, J.

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

Gibbs v. Southern Railway Co., 156 S.E. 138, 200 N.C. 49, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 20 (N.C. 1930).

156 S.E. 138 (Gibbs v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagoner v. North Carolina Railroad
77 S.E.2d 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Perry v. . Davis
196 S.E. 815 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Goodman v. Queen City Lines, Inc.
180 S.E. 661 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Adams v. American Enka Corp.
164 S.E. 367 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Murphy v. . Murphy
162 S.E. 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)