Jacobs v. Barefoot Oil Co.
This text of 144 S.E.2d 275 (Jacobs v. Barefoot Oil 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
The appellants preserved, brought forward and argued numerous assignments of error. However, a careful review of the evidence, stipulations, admissions, and the charge of the court leads us to the conclusion that prejudicial error amounting to the denial of a substantial right has not been shown; and the burden is on the defendants to show that if the alleged errors had not occurred, there is reasonable probability the result of the trial might have been different. Waddell v. Carson, 245 N.C. 669, 97 S.E. 2d 222; Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255, 81 S.E. 2d 657.
The testimony of the defendant Barefoot, in our opinion, was sufficient to establish actionable negligence against the defendants.
The verdict and judgment entered below will not be disturbed.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
144 S.E.2d 275, 265 N.C. 454, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-barefoot-oil-co-nc-1965.