Legal Opinion

Plumidies v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1942PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Tbe principles bere applicable are well settled. First. To recover for injuries inflicted by a domestic animal, in an action like' tbe present, two essential facts must be shown: (1) that tbe animal was dangerous, vicious, mischievous, or ferocious, or one termed in law as possessing a vicious propensity; and (2) that tbe owner or keeper knew or should have known of tbe animal’s vicious propensity, character and habits. Hill v. Moseley, 220 N. C., 485, 17 S. E. (2d), 676; Banks v. Maxwell, 205 N. C., 233, 171 S. E., 70; Rector v. Goal Co., 192 N. C., 804, 136 S. E., 113; S. v. Smith, 156 N.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Diamond v. McDonald Service StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Lloyd v. . BowenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Hill Ex Rel. Hill v. MoseleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Atkins v. . Transportation Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. Atkins v. White Transportation Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. Swain v. TillettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. Sink Ex Rel. Pullen v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Lindsey v. . SpeightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API