Legal Opinion
Grindstaff v. Watts
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided May 3, 1961No. 233PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMooRe, J.
The sole question on this appeal is whether or not the “family purpose doctrine,” as applied in tort cases involving the operation of automobiles, is applicable to negligence cases arising out of the operation of motor-boats on the waters of the State.
For the purposes of this appeal we assume, but do not decide, that Manning Watts was a member of the family of John E. Watts according to the rules laid down in McGee v. Crawford, 205 N.C. 318, 321, 171 S.E. 326.
In any event, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence against the defendant John E. Watts…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Linville v. . NissenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Hays v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- Taylor v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Thompson v. LassiterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Brittingham v. . StadiemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- General Insurance Company of America v. FaulknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Smith v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Byrne v. BordeauxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Paul E. Kline v. Wheels by Kinney, Inc., and Kinney National Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1972
- Rushing v. PolkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.