King v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
This text of 200 N.C. 398 (King v. Seaboard Air Line 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
The liability of the defendant in this case is governed by the opinion in Earwood v. R. R., 192 N. C., 27, 133 S. E., 180. See, also, McGee v. Warren, 198 N. C., 672, 153 S. E., 162; Smith v. R. R., ante, 177; North Carolina Law Review, December, 1930, p. 98.
The defendant insists that it was the duty of the court to submit an issue of contributory negligence in each case. Of course, issues arise upon the pleadings and must be framed accordingly. Nevertheless, the trial judge is not required to submit an issue to the jury if there is no [400]*400evidence to support it. Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., 245; Rice v. R. R., 174 N. C., 268, 93 S. E., 774; Hoggard v. Brown, 192 N. C., 494, 135 S. E., 331; McIntosh North Carolina Practice and Procedure, p. 545.
The record discloses no evidence of contributory negligence and the ruling of the trial judge was correct.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
200 N.C. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-seaboard-air-line-railway-co-nc-1931.