McNeill v. Bullock
This text of 106 S.E.2d 509 (McNeill v. Bullock) 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
Even though a motor vehicle is operated on private property and away from a public highway or street, it is the duty of the operator thereof to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to a child of tender years. 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, section 349 (3) page 821.
In the instant case, however, there is no evidence tending to show that the defendant saw the plaintiff’s intestate after the child went into the house for the purpose of being bathed. Did the defendant know the child had been called to come in the house to get his bath? If so, did the defendant know that the child had left the yard in response to such call? Since the record is silent in respect to such matters, and there is. no evidence tending to show that the defendant knew the child was in the yard at the time he backed his car over the child, in our opinion the evidence is insufficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.
The ruling of the court below in sustaining the defendant’s motion *418 for judgment as of nonsuit will be upheld.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
106 S.E.2d 509, 249 N.C. 416, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-bullock-nc-1959.