Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stroud v. . Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1939PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1DissentWinborne, J.

STACY, C. J., and BARNHILL, J., concur in dissent. This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff shows substantially that the plaintiff, a boy eighteen years old, was an employee at Bowman's Filling Station on 28 October, 1936, at the time of his injury. John L. McLeod and Lacy Henry, employees of the defendant and operating a truck for said defendant, came to the filling station for the purpose of inflating one of the tires of the truck, which they proceeded to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Cashwell v. Fayetteville Pepsi-Cola Bottling WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  3. Lisle v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  4. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. HummelCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
  5. Moreman Gin Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Davidson & Jones, Inc. v. County of New HanoverCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Quail Hollow East Condominium Association v. Donald J. Scholz Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Nance v. ParksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Petrou v. HaleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Davis v. Siloo Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

14 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