Thomas v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Thomas v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

173 S.E. 344, 206 N.C. 332, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 176

DecidedMarch 21, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 173 S.E. 344 (Thomas v. Carolina Power & Light 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

Thomas v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 173 S.E. 344, 206 N.C. 332, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 176 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was no evidence at the trial of this action, which tends to show that either of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the failure of the defendant to exercise due care for his safety. Both injuries were caused, as shown by all the evidence, by accidents which no reasonable foresight on the part of the defendant could have prevented. In the absence of any evidence tending to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action.

The injuries shown by the evidence were suffered by plaintiff, while at work as an employee of defendant, prior to the enactment of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, chapter 120, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1929. In the absence of negligence on its part, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages which resulted from his injuries. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There was no evidence at the trial of this action, which tends to show that either of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the failure of the defendant to exercise due care for his safety. Both injuries were caused, as shown by all the evidence, by accidents which no reasonable foresight on the part of the defendant could have prevented. In the absence of any evidence tending to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action.

The injuries shown by the evidence were suffered by plaintiff, while at work as an employee of defendant, prior to the enactment of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, chapter 120, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1929. In the absence of negligence on its part, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages which resulted from his injuries. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.E. 344, 206 N.C. 332, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-carolina-power-light-co-nc-1934.