Legal Opinion

Mills v. Marion Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 30, 1929PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBeogden, J.

1. Is it evidence of negligence to require a workman to clean machinery while in motion ?

2. If so, does the act of the workman in so cleaning the machinery constitute contributory negligence or assumption of risk as a matter of law?

These propositions were considered by this Court in Marks v. Cotton Mills, 138 N. C., 401, 50 S. E., 769. The rule was thus declared: “To prevent misconception, we desire to say that our decision in this case, based upon the admitted facts, is simply that the allegation of negligence in ordering the machine to be cleaned while in motion should be submitted to the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Noble v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. Marks v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Lynch v. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  4. Maulden v. High Point Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. Ensley v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lane Ex Rel. Lane v. PaschallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API