Shepard v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

84 S.E. 277, 169 N.C. 239, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 186
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 17, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 277 (Shepard v. Norfolk Southern 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
Shepard v. Norfolk Southern Railroad, 84 S.E. 277, 169 N.C. 239, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 186 (N.C. 1915).

Opinion

Pee Oubiam.

On a former appeal in this cause, reported in 166 N. C., 639, from a judgment for defendant, a new trial was ordered. The facts will there sufficiently appear. The case has been tried below in accordance with the principles announced in that opinion, and we find no reason for disturbing the result.

It is urged for error that, inasmuch as plaintiff himself testified that his automobile was going 8 or 10 miles an hour, he is barred of recovery as a conclusion of law, by reason of the public statute of North Carolina regulating speed of automobiles, chapter 107, Laws 1913, and more especially by the last clause of section 15 of the act, in terms as follows: “Upon approaching an intersecting highway, a bridge, dam, sharp curve, or steep descent, and also in traversing such intersecting highway, bridge, dam, curve, or descent, a person operating a motor vehicle shall have it under control and operate it at such speed, not to exceed 7 miles an hour, having regard to the traffic then on such highways and the safety of the public.”

The position, in our opinion, however, cannot be sustained, because, among other things, it withdraws the question of proximate cause from the jury, and, on the facts in evidence, this would be in contravention of our decisions on the subject, notably, McNeill v. R. R., 167 N. C., 390; Clark v. Wright, ibid., 64, and Buchanan v. Lumber Co., 168 N. C., 40.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

Related

DeLaney v. Henderson-Gilmer Co.
192 N.C. 647 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Graham v. . Charlotte
120 S.E. 466 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Graham v. City of Charlotte
186 N.C. 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Perry v. . R. R.
104 S.E. 673 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Perry v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
180 N.C. 290 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Hardy v. West Coast Construction Co.
93 S.E. 841 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Hinton v. Southern Railway Co.
90 S.E. 756 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Brown v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
88 S.E. 329 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Hardy v. . Insurance Co.
70 S.E. 828 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 S.E. 277, 169 N.C. 239, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepard-v-norfolk-southern-railroad-nc-1915.