Mayberry v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Per curiam
The actionable negligence of the defendant Grier is established by his own testimony with absolute finality. As to the defendant Thomas, the question was whether his failure to observe Grier’s approach constituted- negligence which was a proximate cause of the collision producing plaintiff's injuries. The answer depends upon whether, in the exercise of a proper lookout as -he entered the intersection, what he could or should have seen would have been sufficient to put him on notice, in time to have avoided the accident, that Grier did not mean to stop in obedience to the flashing red light.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stathopoulos v. ShookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Gregory v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic v. PetrozzaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Lenins v. K-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Matter of NorrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.