Matheny v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
“The overwhelming weight of authority in this country is to the effect that ponds, pools, lakes, streams, reservoirs, and other bodies of water, do not per se constitute attractive nuisances. 56 Am. Jur,, Water, Section 436, p. 850. 'The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the. absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location,’ 65 C.J.S., Negligence, Sec. 29 (12) j, p. 475. It is, therefore, not negligence per se to maintain (even) an unenclosed pond, pool, lake, or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Price v. Atchison Water Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- Starling v. Selma Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- McMillin's Administrator v. Bourbon Stock Yards Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Barlow v. . GurneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hawkins v. HouserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Roberson v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Lanier v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- Miller v. PerryDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1970
- Walker v. SprinkleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966