Miller v. Globe Manufacturing Co.

162 S.E. 925, 202 N.C. 254, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 476
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 17, 1932·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*255 Stacy, 0. J.

Plaintiff’s injury seems to have resulted from one of those unfortunate accidents which was not anticipated and could not have been foreseen in the exercise of a reasonable prevision on the part of the defendant. Therefore, under the principles announced in Goddard v. Desk Co., 199 N. C., 22, 153 S. E., 608, Crisp v. Lumber Co., 199 N. C., 343, 154 S. E., 311, King v. Power Co., 198 N. C., 86, 150 S. E.,711, and Warwick v. Ginning Co., 153 N. C., 262, 69 S. E., 129, the judgment will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Miller v. Globe Manufacturing Co., 162 S.E. 925, 202 N.C. 254, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 476 (N.C. 1932).

162 S.E. 925 (Miller v. Globe Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kientz v. Carlton
96 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Allison v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
99 F.2d 507 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
Hagar Ex Rel. Hagar v. Red Band Co.
169 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
King v. Bynum Printing Co.
166 S.E. 325 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)