Ogle Ex Rel. Ogle v. Gibson
This text of 198 S.E. 598 (Ogle Ex Rel. Ogle v. Gibson) 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
The jury might have inferred from the instruction given that the defendants could not prevail on the issue of contributory negligence unless they were free from negligence, placing the burden of such a showing upon the defendants.
There could be no contributory negligence unless the defendants were also negligent. Ballew v. R. R., 186 N. C., 704, 120 S. E., 334. It is the contribution which the plaintiff makes to the negligence of the defendants as the proximate cause of the injury which bars the right to recover. Davis v. Jeffreys, 197 N. C., 712, 150 S. E., 488; Elder v. R. R., 194 N. C., 617, 140 S. E., 298; Construction Co., v. R. R., 185 N. C., 43, 116 S. E., 3.
We consider the instruction on this issue erroneous in this respect, entitling the defendants to a new trial.
We do not consider the other exceptions, since they may not recur on the next trial.
New trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
198 S.E. 598, 214 N.C. 127, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogle-ex-rel-ogle-v-gibson-nc-1938.