Legal Opinion

West v. . Mining Corporation

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 30, 1929PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarKSON, J.

Tbe charge of tbe court below is not- set forth in tbe record; tbe presumption is that tbe court below charged fully under tbe facts tbe law applicable to negligence, contributory negligence and damage. Crisp v. Thread Mills, 189 N. C., 89.

In Street v. Coal Co., 196 N. C., at p. 181-2, the law is thus stated: “It is the duty of the employer, in the exercise of ordinary care, to furnish an employee with a reasonably safe place to work. This is especially so where the place is more or less dangerous. The employer is not an insurer of the employee’s safety. Before directing an employee to work…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Lloyd v. P. H. Hanes & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
  4. Tanner v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Deligny v. Tate Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Siragusa v. Swedish HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Swaney v. Peden Steel CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Eaker v. . International Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  5. Eaker v. International Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

4 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