Lovin v. Town of Hamlet
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, C. J.
In considering the complaint to determine whether it states a cause of action, a distinction must be drawn between the construction and maintenance of the park as such and the construction and maintenance of the lake. The attractive nuisance doctrine has no application to the maintenance of the park. It is maintained for the amusement, entertainment, and recreation of children of the defendant town, and such children are at least impliedly invited to visit the park and to make use of the swings, slides, wading pool and playground. Furthermore, there is no allegation that plaintiff’s intestate…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Purser v. LedbetterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Teague v. Siler City Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Atkins v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Glenn Ex Rel. Glenn v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Bell v. PageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Roberson v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Samuel v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Bell v. PageCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.