Springs v. Tallassee Power Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Springs v. Tallassee Power Co.

114 S.E. 628, 184 N.C. 425, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 102

DecidedNovember 29, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 628 (Springs v. Tallassee Power Co.) 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

Springs v. Tallassee Power Co., 114 S.E. 628, 184 N.C. 425, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 102 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Tbe usual issues, in sueb cases, of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were submitted. Tbe defendant asked tbe court to instruct tbe jury as to eacb of tbe three issues, severally, as follows: “If tbe jury shall find tbe facts from all tbe evidence considered in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, they will answer this issue No.’ ”

On appeal, tbe defendant abandons all exceptions except to tbe refusal of these instructions. Upon careful examination of tbe evidence, we find that there was sufficient evidence for tbe plaintiff to go to tbe jury upon eacb of these three propositions. There was evidence to tbe contrary on eacb of these issues, but that was a matter for tbe jury. In refusing tbe peremptory instructions asked we find

No error.

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

Clark, C. J.

Tbe usual issues, in sueb cases, of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were submitted. Tbe defendant asked tbe court to instruct tbe jury as to eacb of tbe three issues, severally, as follows: “If tbe jury shall find tbe facts from all tbe evidence considered in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, they will answer this issue No.’ ”

On appeal, tbe defendant abandons all exceptions except to tbe refusal of these instructions. Upon careful examination of tbe evidence, we find that there was sufficient evidence for tbe plaintiff to go to tbe jury upon eacb of these three propositions. There was evidence to tbe contrary on eacb of these issues, but that was a matter for tbe jury. In refusing tbe peremptory instructions asked we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 628, 184 N.C. 425, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springs-v-tallassee-power-co-nc-1922.