Hagins v. Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Railway Co.

106 N.C. 537
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 15, 1890·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured by the negligence of the engineer in charge of the locomotive. The general rule is well settled that where an employee is injured by the negligence of a fellow-servant — and such was the relation between the plaintiff, a bralceman, and the engineer — the common master is not responsible. It is true that upon allegation and proof that the servant was exposed to unusual and unreasonable risks, or that the master knowing that [539]*539the servant causing the injury was unfit or incapable, employed or retained in employment such servant, there is an exception to the rule. But there is no such allegation here. The complaint sets out simply that one servant was injured by the negligence of his fellow, without any allegation of facts to take the case out of the application of the law arising on such state of facts. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. x

Action dismissed.

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

Hagins v. Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Railway Co., 106 N.C. 537 (N.C. 1890).

106 N.C. 537 (Hagins v. Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pleasants v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad
28 S.E. 267 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Rittenhouse v. Wilmington Street-Railway Co.
26 S.E. 922 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)