Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

130 S.E. 926, 190 N.C. 876, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 231

DecidedDecember 23, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 926 (Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad) 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

Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 130 S.E. 926, 190 N.C. 876, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 231 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff alleged tbat while in tbe act of descending from tbe platform of one of tbe defendant’s cars ber foot was cangbt by a piece of tin or sheet iron which extended along tbe top and edge of tbe platform and tbat she was thereby thrown to tbe ground and injured. She alleged also tbat tbe proximate cause of ber injury was tbe negligence of tbe defendant in allowing tbe piece of metal to cup and project above tbe surface of tbe platform to which it was attached and in allowing tbe platform to become worn and unsafe.

During tbe trial tbe defendant entered of record several exceptions; but we have not discovered in any of them sufficient ground for a new trial. Tbe case seems to have been determined in accordance with recognized principles of law. No prejudicial error having been shown, tbe judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.

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

Pee Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff alleged tbat while in tbe act of descending from tbe platform of one of tbe defendant’s cars ber foot was cangbt by a piece of tin or sheet iron which extended along tbe top and edge of tbe platform and tbat she was thereby thrown to tbe ground and injured. She alleged also tbat tbe proximate cause of ber injury was tbe negligence of tbe defendant in allowing tbe piece of metal to cup and project above tbe surface of tbe platform to which it was attached and in allowing tbe platform to become worn and unsafe.

During tbe trial tbe defendant entered of record several exceptions; but we have not discovered in any of them sufficient ground for a new trial. Tbe case seems to have been determined in accordance with recognized principles of law. No prejudicial error having been shown, tbe judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 926, 190 N.C. 876, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-ex-rel-mullins-v-louisville-nashville-railroad-nc-1925.