Diamond v. McDonald Service Stores
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
The case turns on two questions: (1) Was it the duty of the defendant to warn the plaintiff of the presence of inflammable material in the pit? (2) Was plaintiff contributorily negligent? Both questions, we apprehend, should be submitted to the jury for answer under proper instructions from the court. Ellington v. Ricks, 179 N. C., 686, 102 S. E., 510; Evans v. Lbr. Co., 174 N. C., 31, 93 S. E., 430; Absher v. Raleigh, ante, 567; Cole v. R. R., ante, 591. See Cook v. Mfg. Co., 183 N. C., 48, 110 S. E., 608. “The rule applicable in cases of this kind is, that if diverse inferences may…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Hanes v. ShapiroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Fitzgerald v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Hanes v. . ShapiroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Bundy v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Tyson v. . FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Raper v. McCRORY-McLELLAN CORPORATIONSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Houston v. City of MonroeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Gorham v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.