Legal Opinion

Hagwood v. Odom

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1988No. 8710SC283PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GREENE, Judge.

Plaintiff Harry W. Hagwood (hereinafter, “Hagwood” or “plaintiff”) and his wife alleged defendant Odom, an employee of defendant Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter, “Southern Bell”), negligently operated a truck which proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants answered that Hagwood’s failure to utilize a seat belt was contributory negligence. Prior to trial, the court entered an order in limine prohibiting defendants’ counsel and witnesses from informing the jury that the plaintiff “was or was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident.”…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Sink v. EasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Burgess Ex Rel. Burgess v. GibbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Bell v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Tina BARRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  2. Davis v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
  3. prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,983 Kenneth Depaepe v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  4. Deer Corporation v. CarterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  5. Davis v. KnipplingSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998

19 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