Legal Opinion

Miller v. Globe Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 17, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

Plaintiff’s injury seems to have resulted from one of those unfortunate accidents which was not anticipated and could not have been foreseen in the exercise of a reasonable prevision on the part of the defendant. Therefore, under the principles announced in Goddard v. Desk Co., 199 N. C., 22, 153 S. E., 608, Crisp v. Lumber Co., 199 N. C., 343, 154 S. E., 311, King v. Power Co., 198 N. C., 86, 150 S. E.,711, and Warwick v. Ginning Co., 153 N. C., 262, 69 S. E., 129, the judgment will be upheld.

Affirmed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Warwick v. Lumberton Cotton Oil & Ginning Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  2. Goddard v. Southern Desk Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Crisp v. Kitchin Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. King v. . Power CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kientz v. CarltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Allison v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  3. Hagar Ex Rel. Hagar v. Red Band Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  4. King v. Bynum Printing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932