Legal Opinion

Cable v. Kitchen Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 3, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cubiam.

Defendant assigns as error the following excerpt from the charge: “The court charges you as a matter of law that the duty devolves upon the defendant to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, reasonably safe machinery, appliances, and that they should be operated in a reasonably safe way.”

This instruction is in direct conflict with what was said in Owen v. Lumber Co., 185 N. C., 612; Gaither v. Clement, 183 N. C., 455; Tritt v. Lumber Co., 183 N. C., 830; Smith v. R. R., 182 N. C., 296, and must be held for reversible error.

Speaking to the question in Murphy v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  2. Smith v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Owen v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Tritt v. Gloucester Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Murray v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Murray v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. O'Brien v. . Parks Cramer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Lindsey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Hall v. . RhinehartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

1 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