Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Holland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 8, 1989No. 391PA88Published

1DissentJustice Martin

I dissent from the holding and reasoning of the majority as to Mrs. Holland’s duty to secure her child in a restraint system.

The majority opinion slips into error in its reliance upon Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228, 160 S.E. 2d 65. It is true this Court did hold in Miller that the allegation that plaintiff failed to wear a seat belt was not an allegation of facts constituting contributory negligence. However, it is necessary to note and understand that the plaintiff in Miller was an adult and there was not in effect at that time a statute requiring the use of seat belts.

Our case is not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Citizens National Bank v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Moore v. BezallaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Spruill v. SummerlinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Johnson v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API