May v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Pinnix v. . GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Leary v. . Land BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Childress v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- Maola Ice Cream Co. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Parrish v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1967
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Limmer, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
- Coleman v. BurrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Jones v. PettifordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- Penny v. Seaboard Coast Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.