McKinish v. Norwood Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McKinish v. Norwood Lumber Co.

133 S.E. 163, 191 N.C. 836, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 207

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 27, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 163 (McKinish v. Norwood Lumber 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

McKinish v. Norwood Lumber Co., 133 S.E. 163, 191 N.C. 836, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 207 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant relies, on this appeal, chiefly upon its exception to tbe refusal of tbe court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Tbe only other exceptions are to tbe exclusion of evidence upon objection of plaintiff. There are no exceptions to tbe instructions of tbe court in tbe charge to tbe jury, wbicb has not been included in tbe case on appeal.

Tbe fact, as found by tbe jury, that plaintiff by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury, does not bar a recovery by him of damages resulting from bis injury. Tbe effect of contributory negligence was to diminish tbe amount assessed by tbe jury as damages in proportion to tbe amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff. C. S. (1919), secs. 3466, 3467 and 3468, by tbe express provisions of C. S., 3470, are applicable in an action against defendant by plaintiff, to recover damages upon tbe facts of this case. Defendant was engaged in tbe operation of a logging road, and plaintiff was employed by defendant in tbe operation of said road. Tbe injury was sustained while plaintiff was at work as such employee. Craig v. Lumber Co., 185 N. C., 560.

There was evidence from wbicb tbe jury could find, as they did, that plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect, or insufficiency, due to defendant’s negligence, in tbe appliances, furnished by defendant to plaintiff, with wbicb to do bis work. Tbe assignments of error cannot be sustained and tbe judgment must be affirmed. There is

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant relies, on this appeal, chiefly upon its exception to tbe refusal of tbe court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Tbe only other exceptions are to tbe exclusion of evidence upon objection of plaintiff. There are no exceptions to tbe instructions of tbe court in tbe charge to tbe jury, wbicb has not been included in tbe case on appeal.

Tbe fact, as found by tbe jury, that plaintiff by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury, does not bar a recovery by him of damages resulting from bis injury. Tbe effect of contributory negligence was to diminish tbe amount assessed by tbe jury as damages in proportion to tbe amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff. C. S. (1919), secs. 3466, 3467 and 3468, by tbe express provisions of C. S., 3470, are applicable in an action against defendant by plaintiff, to recover damages upon tbe facts of this case. Defendant was engaged in tbe operation of a logging road, and plaintiff was employed by defendant in tbe operation of said road. Tbe injury was sustained while plaintiff was at work as such employee. Craig v. Lumber Co., 185 N. C., 560.

There was evidence from wbicb tbe jury could find, as they did, that plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect, or insufficiency, due to defendant’s negligence, in tbe appliances, furnished by defendant to plaintiff, with wbicb to do bis work. Tbe assignments of error cannot be sustained and tbe judgment must be affirmed. There is

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 163, 191 N.C. 836, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinish-v-norwood-lumber-co-nc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack