Legal Opinion

Brigman v. Fiske-Carter Construction Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 31, 1926PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogtoeN, J.

The question is this: What duty did the defendant owe the plaintiff, Lucy Brigman, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence?

The defendant contends that the plaintiff, Lucy Brigman, was a trespasser or a mere permissive licensee and relies upon the principle of law announced in the case of Sweeny v. Old Colony R. R., (Mass.). 10 Allen, 368; 87 American Decisions, 644, which is thus stated: “In order to maintain an action for an injury to person or property by reason of negligence or want of due care, there must be shown to exist some obligation or duty towards the plaintiff, which the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Reardon v. ThompsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  2. Briscoe v. Henderson Lighting & Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. Bailey v. North Carolina R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. Stevens v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  5. Corrigan v. Union Sugar RefineryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Lamson & Sessions Bolt Co. v. McCartySupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  2. Alabama Baptist Hospital Board v. CarterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. Anderson v. WeltyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  5. Gastine v. EwingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API