Legal Opinion

Lee v. . Roberson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 24, 1941Published

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Tbe case was properly submitted to tbe jury. It is admitted that tbe defendant .bad a sufficient number of employees to bring him under tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act “and that be bad not done so.” Accordingly, without objection or exception, bis plea of contributory negligence was stricken out. Micbie’s N. C. Code of 1939, sec. 8081 (v).

Tbe defendant relies upon tbe simple tool doctrine. Newbern v. Great Atlantic, Etc., Tea Co., 68 F. (2d), 523, 91 A. L. R.,781. This cannot avail him on tbe present record, at least, not to tbe extent of shielding him from liability. King v. R. R., 174 N. C.,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mercer v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. King v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  3. Reid v. . ReesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  4. Ensley v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  5. Wright v. . ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API