Legal Opinion

Newman Ex Rel. Newman v. Queen City Coach Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 28, 1933PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEkogdeN, J.

The contention that the plaintiff and the driver of the car were engaged in a joint enterprise is not sustained. “A common enterprise in riding is not enough. The circumstances must be such as to show that the plaintiff and the driver had such control over the car as to be substantially in the joint possession of it.” Charnock v. Refrigerating Co., 202 N. C., 105, 161 S. E., 707; Albritton v. Hill, 190 N. C., 429, 130 S. E., 5. Likewise the judge ruled correctly in submitting the cause to the jury. The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that, when the bus arrived at the top of the hill,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Albritton v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Charnock v. Reusing Light & Refrigerating Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McAdams v. BlueCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Price v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Bass Ex Rel. Bass v. HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. James v. Atlantic & East Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. Harper v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

7 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