Legal Opinion

Boykin v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

The basis of the nonsuit is that plaintiff’s intestate was contributorily negligent as a matter of law under authority of Tart v. R. R., 202 N. C., 52, 161 S. E., 720. Tbe Tart case, supra, is distinguishable by reason of the fact that there the accident occurred 61 steps from the crossing and the plaintiff traversed a distance of 20 feet with unobstructed view before stumbling in front of an on-coming train. Here, the injury occurred at the crossing which had just been obstructed by the shifting engine and cars.

It was conceded on the argument that, had plaintiff's intestate been…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Rolin v. . Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. High v. Carolina Central RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  3. Plumley v. BirgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
  4. Eller v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Tart Ex Rel. Tart v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brown v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Hutchens Ex Rel. Hutchens v. SouthardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  3. Alexander v. . StatesvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Hoots v. BeesonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. McMillan v. . ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

1 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