Arant Ex Rel. Rooker v. Ransom
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBritt, J.
Defendants Ransom filed in this Court a demurrer ore temis to the complaint, contending that the complaint alleges no facts showing actionable negligence on the part of defendants Ransom but affirmatively discloses that the sole proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of defendant Armstrong.
In support of their demurrer, defendants Ransom cite Hout v. Harvell, 270 N.C. 274, 154 S.E. 2d 41. We think Hout is clearly distinguishable from the case before us. In Hout, the car in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger was traveling in the opposite direction from the car with which it…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Garland v. PenegarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Correll v. GaskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Southern National Bank of NC v. LindseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Hout v. HarvellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. Inn WestCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- WICKES CORPORATION v. HodgeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970