Webb v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

2 S.E. 440, 97 N.C. 387
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1887·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

MekrimoN, J.

We do not deem it necessary to advert in detail to the several assignments of error in this case, because in our judgment, in any just view of the facts of it as they appear in the record, the injury sustained by the plaintiff was most probably the result of casualty- — -possibly of his own carelessness and lack of expertness, and if there was any carelessness on the part of any employee of the defendant, engaged in shifting or moving the cars at the time the injury was sustained, it was obviously that of a fellow-servant, for which the defendant is not amenable.

The injury so sustained by the plaintiff was his misfortune.

It seems that the defendant, nevertheless, generously and commendably cared for him.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Webb v. Richmond & Danville Railroad, 2 S.E. 440, 97 N.C. 387 (N.C. 1887).

2 S.E. 440 (Webb v. Richmond & Danville Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. American Cotton Mills, Inc.
127 S.E. 834 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Pleasants v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad
28 S.E. 267 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Hanna v. Granger
28 A. 659 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1894)
Ell v. Northern Pacific Railroad
12 L.R.A. 97 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Hobbs v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad
12 S.E. 124 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)