Legal Opinion

Howard v. . Texas Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 28, 1933PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.

Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to explosions of the type described in the evidence?

There was no evidence that the filling station, tanks or pipes were negligently installed or operated, or that there ivas any defect in the station or its equipment. Consequently, unless the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the trial judge was in error in reversing the judgment of nonsuit and remanding the case for trial. The evidence leaves no doubt as to the fact that the filling station and its equipment and fixtures were under the exclusive control of the defendants. It is also a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hinnant v. Tidewater Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Stone v. Texas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  3. Newton v. . Texas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Stone v. . Texas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  5. Harris v. . MangumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Etheridge v. . EtheridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. Etheridge v. EtheridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. Thomas v. Motor LinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. Smith v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Millers Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois v. Atkinson Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

10 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