Ballew v. Asheville & East Tennessee Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
In an action brought in a court of common law there could be no recovery for negligence by a plaintiff whose default contributed to the injury, but as against common carriers by railway this principle has been modified by statute. The fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery, but in such case the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the negligence attributable to the employee. C. S., sec. 3467. This statute is effective against the railroad company but not against the defendant Howland, and the question for decision is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Aiken v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Palmer v. Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Banks v. BramanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. CockrumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Brannen v. Kokomo, Greentown & Jerome Gravel Road Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Pleasant v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Foster v. . HymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Brewer v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Jenkins v. North Carolina Department of Motor VehiclesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Givens v. SellarsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.