Legal Opinion

Monk v. Flanagan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 24, 1965No. 113PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

A critical study of plaintiff’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, leads us to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to show any actionable negligence on the part of the defendants, or either of them, resulting in his unfortunate injuries. Plaintiff has no evidence that would reasonably warrant an inference of fact' that the flying open of the door of the “pot burner” when he turned its knob, and the eruption therefrom of a blast of hot steam, scalding oil and hot ashes and soot was caused by any act of defendants. “An inference of negligence cannot rest on conjecture…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sowers v. MarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Lane v. BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Poovey v. International Sugar Feed No. Two Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Hopkins v. ComerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Hanrahan v. Walgreen CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sabol v. Parrish Realty of Zebulon, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Best v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1980
  3. Sabol v. Parrish Realty of Zebulon, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API