Legal Opinion

Cantey v. Barnes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 7, 1981No. 8016DC734PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECTON, Judge.

The defendant first argues that the court should have granted a directed verdict in her favor because the plaintiff “failed to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and has shown contributory negligence barring her recovery.” We disagree. A directed verdict should be granted only if the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the plaintiff. Husketh v. Convenient Systems, 295 N.C. 459, 245 S.E. 2d 507 (1978); Dickinson v. Poke, 284 N.C. 576, 201 S.E. 2d 897 (1974). “[I]n considering a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Rappaport v. Days Inn of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Gregory v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. Husketh v. Convenient Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Jones v. SATTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Blevins v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API