Legal Opinion

Gilmore v. . R. R.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPHERD, C. J., and BURWELL, J., dissent. There can be no question, upon the uncontradicted testimony, that the failure to blow for the crossing was negligence on the part of the defendant. Randall v. R. R., 104 N.C. 410; Hinkle v. R. R., 109 N.C. 472. The defendant, however, contends that plaintiff failed to "stop, look and listen," when he reached the point from which to the crossing it would be dangerous for the plaintiff to drive when a train was approaching. The principles here involved have been so clearly discussed and settled in recent cases in this Court, in those named above, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Norton v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  2. Deans v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. Hinkle v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  4. Randall v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  5. Mesic v. Atlantic & North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jenkins v. Norfolk-Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API