Lanier v. Roses Stores, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBritt, J.
Plaintiff’s evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to her, and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact, as we are required to do, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of actionable negligence for the jury.
The failure to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent man would have exercised under like circumstances is negligence, and this may consist of acts of commission or omissioii. 3 Strong, N. C. Index, Negligence, § 1, p. 442, and cases cited therein. Forrest v. Kress & Co., 1 N.C. App. 305, 161 S.E. 2d 225.
Those entering a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Bowden v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Isaac Benesch & Sons, Inc. v. FerklerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
- Lee v. H. L. Green & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Colclough v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- Hull v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
- Orr v. SaylorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1969
- Orr v. SaylorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1969