Merritt v. Tide Water Power Co.

171 S.E. 90, 205 N.C. 259, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 525
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 11, 1933·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*260 Stacy, C. J.

Conceding, without deciding, the evidence is sufficient to warrant the inference that the fire originated from some defect in the electrical equipment (Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C., 131, 69 S. E., 767, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.), 848; 9 R. C. L., 1196), nevertheless it also establishes the fact, contrary to the allegations of the complaint, that the defendant was under no duty to inspect or to maintain the lighting-equipment in the stockade in a safe condition. Small v. Utilities Co., 200 N. C., 719, 158 S. E., 385; 9 R. C. L., 1204. This differentiates the case from Collins v. Electric Co., 204 N. C., 320, 168 S. E., 500, cited and strongly relied upon by the plaintiff.

The action was properly dismissed as in case of nonsuit.

Affirmed.

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

Merritt v. Tide Water Power Co., 171 S.E. 90, 205 N.C. 259, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 525 (N.C. 1933).

171 S.E. 90 (Merritt v. Tide Water Power Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Duke Power Co.
97 F.2d 529 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
Brady v. Standard Oil Co.
174 S.E. 456 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)