Fry v. . R. R.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ALLEN and HOKE, JJ., concurring; CLARK, C. J., dissenting. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WALKER. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for injuries received while uncoupling an air-hose between two cars, and which he alleges were caused by the negligence of the defendant. The rules of the railroad company prohibited employees from going between cars, while in motion, for the purpose of coupling or uncoupling cars, and plaintiff was aware of this rule at the time of the accident, and knew that he was also forbidden by it to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Stewart v. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Pickett v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Wilkinson v. . DunbarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Kinney v. FolkertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Whitson v. Wrenn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Strunks v. . PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Embler v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.