Legal Opinion

Stanley v. Durham & Northern Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1897PublishedCited by 28 opinions

Civil aotioN, for damages, tried befóre Coble, J., aad a jury, at "March. Term, 1896, Durham: Superior Court. ■ There was a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed, assigning as error the instruction referred to in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Moktgombby, J.:

The plaintiff’s intestate, in the night time, was walking along the defendant’s track between Durham and East Durham, the public being accustomed' to use the same as a walking way, when he was run down by the company’s engine, which was moving with a box car in front, and hurt so badly that he died from the injury. The box car in front of the engine obscured the headlight so that the track was not lighted in front of the moving train. The testimony as to whether there was a watchman and light on the bes car was conflicting and contradictory. The following issues were submitted…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lloyd v. Albemarle & Raleigh R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1896

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Purnell v. Raleigh & Gaston RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  2. Norton v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  3. McNeill v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Morris v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Shepherd v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API