Walls v. City of Winston-Salem

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Walls v. City of Winston-Salem

141 S.E.2d 277, 264 N.C. 232, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1159

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1965

Docket452

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 S.E.2d 277 (Walls v. City of Winston-Salem) 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

Walls v. City of Winston-Salem, 141 S.E.2d 277, 264 N.C. 232, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1159 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

The court, sitting in this nonjury case, did not render judgment on the merits; but at the close of plaintiff's evidence entered judgment of nonsuit. The judgment may be sustained only if the evidence is insufficient to make out a case of negligence against the city, or if it discloses that plaintiff’s negligence, as a matter of law, caused or contributed to her injury. According to the plaintiff’s own evidence, the hole in which she fell had been there, to her knowledge, for two months. Both she and her husband were accustomed to park the family automobile over it. If the hole constituted a hazard, her failure to remember it was certainly inexcusable. The plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety constitutes negligence as a matter of law. The nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

PER Cueiam.

The court, sitting in this nonjury case, did not render judgment on the merits; but at the close of plaintiff's evidence entered judgment of nonsuit. The judgment may be sustained only if the evidence is insufficient to make out a case of negligence against the city, or if it discloses that plaintiff’s negligence, as a matter of law, caused or contributed to her injury. According to the plaintiff’s own evidence, the hole in which she fell had been there, to her knowledge, for two months. Both she and her husband were accustomed to park the family automobile over it. If the hole constituted a hazard, her failure to remember it was certainly inexcusable. The plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety constitutes negligence as a matter of law. The nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 277, 264 N.C. 232, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-v-city-of-winston-salem-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack