Legal Opinion

Potter Ex Rel. Potter v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 3, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The plaintiff admits that the controversy is to be determined under the provisions of the Eederal Employers’ Liability Act, and that the two decisive questions are involved in the first and third issues. The defendant in apt time moved to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff had not shown any act of negligence on the part of the defendant, and, if he had shown negligence, that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of personal injury and was barred of his alleged right to recover damages. The motion was denied. We are therefore first concerned with the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railroad v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. Bunn v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Dooley v. HaddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  5. Smith v. RitchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Candler v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  2. Winfree v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Bunn v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Poole v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API