Legal Opinion

Shorter v. Mooresville Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 27, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBkogdeN, J.

The right of plaintiff to recover damages in this action is based upon the theory that Pruitt, a fellow-servant, was incompetent, reckless and dangerous, and that Pruitt carelessly turned the pulley when the hand of plaintiff was exposed in a dangerous machine, and thereby inflicted serious and permanent injury.

The law presumes that an employer has properly performed his duty in employing his workers, and, therefore, he is not responsible for injuries to an employee attributable solely to the negligence of a fellow-servant. This principle was declared in Walters v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 536,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Walters v. Durham Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. Maulden v. High Point Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Walters v. Durham Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Braswell v. BraswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Pleasants v. . BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. McIlroy v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Dark v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API