Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Daughtry v. . Cline

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 2, 1944PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWinborne, J.

This is a civil action brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in backing a truck over the plaintiff, while engaged in the construction of a taxiway at Fort Bragg, wherein actionable negligence was denied and a plea of contributory negligence interposed. The usual issues involving actionable negligence of the defendant, contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and damages were submitted to and were answered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment predicated on the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning error. The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Shipp Ex Rel. Shipp v. United Stage Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Elder v. Plaza RailwaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Lassiter v. Raleigh & Gaston RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Beaulieu v. ElliottAlaska Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Brooks v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1967
  3. Pruett v. InmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Rodgers v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Essick v. City of LexingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

17 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