Readling v. Town of Cornelius

208 N.C. 218
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 1, 1935·Published

Opinion

Pee. OueiaM.

From tbe entire evidence in this case, we think tbe court below correct in tbe charge. Tbe evidence indicates tbat plaintiff’s testate was crossing Catawba Avenue in tbe town of Cornelius, not at an intersection and in a burry, without looking, bis bead stooped. Tbe car tbat struck bim bad its lights burning. Tbe fact tbat tbe defendant so early in tbe evening bad not turned on the lights of tbe town bad no causal connection with plaintiff’s testate’s injury. There was no defect in tbe street. We think tbe case of Brady v. Randleman, 159 N. C., 434, is very nearly on “all fours” with tbe present case and sustains tbe charge of tbe court below. We think tbe case of Speas v. Greensboro, 204 N. C., 239, is distinguishable. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.

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

Readling v. Town of Cornelius, 208 N.C. 218 (N.C. 1935).

208 N.C. 218 (Readling v. Town of Cornelius) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Speas Ex Rel. Shugart v. City of Greensboro
167 S.E. 807 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Brady v. City of Randleman
74 S.E. 811 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)