Oldham v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Does the plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence bar a recovery as a matter of law? The answer is “No.” Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601. The issue was for the twelve.
Defendants have apparently misinterpreted plaintiff’s testimony. He does not say he knew the train was approaching before going upon the crossing. His statement, “I thought the train was coming from the south,” has reference to what he thought after his car had choked down or stopped, due to the direction in which the watchman was looking when he ran out with his stop sign.
The pertinent principle was stated…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Shepard v. Norfolk & Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Barber v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Rimmer v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Smith v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Johnson v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Ramey v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Miller v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Mount Olive Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.