Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 14, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

The plaintiff bases ber right to recovery upon the following elements of negligence:

1. That tbe railroad company failed to provide a watchman or signaling device at the crossing.

2. That the company, in violation of the ordinance of the city of Wilmington, permitted a gondola car to remain over the crossing more than three minutes.

There was some contention about the failure of the railroad company to maintain a stop sign at the crossing, but there is no specific allegation in the complaint alleging the absence of a stop sign as an element of negligence. The evidence disclosed that no regular…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Eller v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Batchelor v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Standard Crown Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Penland v. Ingle.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. McLellan v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sessoms v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  2. Rose v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. SwindellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
  4. Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API