Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. Safe Bus Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1939PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStacy, C. J.

BARNHILL and WINBORNE, JJ., concur in the opinion of Stacy, C. J. This is an action for recovery of damages for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger on defendant's bus in Winston-Salem.

Two exceptions are taken by the appealing defendant in the course of the trial which we consider worthy of attention:

1. As to the negligence, the plaintiff testified: "I got on the front part of the bus, which was headed up Patterson. I paid the driver five cents. The bus was full of passengers at the time I got on there. I was onmy way to the long seat in the back…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Williams v. Eastern Carolina Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  2. Farrow Ex Rel. Farrow v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Riggs v. Norfolk-Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. . BiggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. Smith v. . KappasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Kolman v. . SilbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  4. Ryals v. . Contracting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Ryals v. Carolina Contracting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

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

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

Powered by the Exa API