Harris v. R. G. Lassiter & Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harris v. R. G. Lassiter & Co.

142 S.E. 325, 195 N.C. 866, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 239

DecidedApril 4, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.E. 325 (Harris v. R. G. Lassiter & 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.

Bluebook

Harris v. R. G. Lassiter & Co., 142 S.E. 325, 195 N.C. 866, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 239 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was directed by his foreman to assist other employees of defendant, who were loading on a wagon rock from a pile on a street in the city of Baleigh. The pile of rocks was about 4% to 5 feet high. It was composed of small paving rock — about the size of a brick. A heavy piece of curbstone was lying on top of the pile. While plaintiff was engaged in his work, the curbstone in some way slipped off the top of the pile, struck plaintiff and crushed his foot. These are all the material facts shown by the evidence.

There was no evidence tending to show a breach of duty on the part of defendant to exercise due care to provide a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work. In .the absence of evidence from which the jury could find that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was the negligence of defendant, as alleged in the complaint, there was no error in the judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was directed by his foreman to assist other employees of defendant, who were loading on a wagon rock from a pile on a street in the city of Baleigh. The pile of rocks was about 4% to 5 feet high. It was composed of small paving rock — about the size of a brick. A heavy piece of curbstone was lying on top of the pile. While plaintiff was engaged in his work, the curbstone in some way slipped off the top of the pile, struck plaintiff and crushed his foot. These are all the material facts shown by the evidence.

There was no evidence tending to show a breach of duty on the part of defendant to exercise due care to provide a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work. In .the absence of evidence from which the jury could find that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was the negligence of defendant, as alleged in the complaint, there was no error in the judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 325, 195 N.C. 866, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-r-g-lassiter-co-nc-1928.