Nettles v. Rea

200 N.C. 44
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 19, 1930·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating tbe case: Conceding, without deciding, tbat plaintiff may have been negligent in entering defendant’s car under tbe circumstances disclosed by tbe record, nevertheless there is evidence of wilful of wanton conduct on tbe part of tbe defendant in persisting in bis reckless driving over tbe protests of bis guests which resulted in .plaintiff’s injury. This, if nothing else, saves tbe case from a nonsuit. Notes, N. C. Law Review, December, 1930, p. 98; 61 A. L. R., 1253; 1 R. C. L. Sup., 614. See, also, Teasley v. Burwell, 199 N. C., 18, 153 S. E., 601; Albritton v. Hill 190 N. C., 429, 130 S. E., 5.

No error.

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

Nettles v. Rea, 200 N.C. 44 (N.C. 1930).

200 N.C. 44 (Nettles v. Rea) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Jackson
166 S.E.2d 541 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
Bell v. Maxwell
98 S.E.2d 33 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Samuels v. Bowers
59 S.E.2d 787 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Mason v. . Johnston
1 S.E.2d 379 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Norfleet v. . Hall
169 S.E. 143 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)