Legal Opinion

May v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 6, 1963No. 594PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.

The jury having answered the issue of contributory negligence against the plaintiff, the defendants are entitled to a judgment unless there is error in the trial below entitling the plaintiff to a venire de novo. Bullard v. Ross, 205 N.C. 495, 171 S.E. 789.

There is error in the charge on the fourth issue which, nothing else-appearing, would entitle the plaintiff to a new trial. His Honor, in effect, charged the jury that if Mrs. Butner approached the crossing at a speed so great she could not stop her automobile within the range of her headlights, she would be guilty of negligence per se.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pinnix v. . GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Leary v. . Land BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. Childress v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Maola Ice Cream Co. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. Parrish v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1967
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Limmer, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
  3. Coleman v. BurrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Jones v. PettifordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  5. Penny v. Seaboard Coast Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

4 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