Goldstein v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Eller v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Batchelor v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Standard Crown Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Penland v. Ingle.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- McLellan v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sessoms v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Rose v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. SwindellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
- Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936