Briles v. Briles
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.
In allowing summary judgment, the court made this finding:
[T]he Court is of the opinion, and so rules, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were “licensees” in the home of their son, David Harold Briles, at the time they sustained injuries on July 1, 1975, and that their injuries were not as a result of any willful or wanton negligence on the part of the defendant, David Harold Briles;
Plaintiffs argue the court erred in holding they were “licensees” at the time in question. In order for a licensee to recover, he must prove defendant’s negligence was wilful or…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Pafford v. . Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Brigman v. . Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Murrell v. HandleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nelson v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Martin v. City of AshevilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- McIntosh v. Carefree Carolina Communities, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Nelson v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998