Crouse v. Woodruff
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
The sole question before us is whether the court erred in allowing defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. We conclude that the court did not err because an insurmountable bar to recovery, contributory negligence as a matter of law, appears on the face of the complaint.
The general rule is that a complaint should not be dismissed “unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.’’ Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 103, 176 S.E. 2d 161, 166 (1970) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice §…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Clark v. RobertsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Moore v. Chicago Bridge & Iron WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Bogen v. . BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Bogen v. BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.