Hallow v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Tbe thesis of tbe demurrer is, that plaintiff was con-tributorily negligent in attempting to alight from a moving train, which bars recovery, and that this affirmatively appears from tbe complaint. Stamey v. R. R., 208 N. C., 668, 182 S. E., 130; Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761; Morrow v. R. R., 134 N. C., 92, 46 S. E., 12; Burgin v. R. R., 115 N. C., 673, 20 S. E., 473.
We do not so understand tbe allegations of tbe complaint. It is alleged that when tbe plaintiff discovered be could not alight in safety be immediately decided to remain on tbe train. This is what be should…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ballinger v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Burgin v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Ramsey v. Nash Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Morrow v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Stamey v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.