Bennett Ex Rel. Bennett v. Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.
We think, if it be conceded the defendant was negligent in the operation of its engine, the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care for his own safety, and thereby contributed to his injury. Coleman v. R. R., 153 N.C. 322, 69 S.E. 251; Bailey v. R. R., 196 N.C. 515, 146 S.E. 135; Tart v. R. R., 202 N.C. 52, 161 S.E. 720; Rimmer v. R. R., 208 N.C. 198, 179 S.E. 753; Bullock v. R. R., 212 N.C. 760, 194 S.E. 468.
“A railroad crossing is itself a notice of danger, and all persons approaching it are bound to exercise care and prudence, and when conditions are such that a diligent use of the senses…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coleman v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Herman v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Tart Ex Rel. Tart v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Rimmer v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Bailey v. Black Mountain Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Price v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Ramey v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Baughn v. Seaboard Air Line RailroadDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1968
- Jernigan v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969