Maulden v. High Point Chair Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.
The chief question of law presented is this: Under what circumstances will the doctrine of assumption of risk bar recovery in personal injury actions?
The evidence discloses that the plaintiff was an experienced employee and was fully aware of the fact that the method of putting on belting, adopted by the defendant, was attended with danger. The law imposes upon an employer of labor the positive duty to use ordinary care in providing employees with reasonably safe methods and means to do the work for which they are employed. Jefferson v. Raleigh, 194 N. C., 479, 140 S. E., 76. There was…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Lloyd v. P. H. Hanes & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Pressly v. Yarn Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Cobia v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Howard v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Siragusa v. Swedish HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1962
- Kelly v. Raleigh Granite Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- West v. . Mining CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Shorter v. Mooresville Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Mills v. Marion Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.