Klingenberg v. City of Raleigh
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentClaeksoN, J.
The majority opinion holds that the judge in the court below should have peremptorily instructed' the jury in favor of the city of Ealeigh on the issue of negligence. From this view I dissent.
Ordinarily negligence is one of mixed law and fact (Filer v. N. Y. Central R. R., 49 N. Y., 47), but the question of negligence is primarily factual. Lane v. Town, 142 N. Y., 510, 37 N. E., 473; 1 Shearman & Eedfield, the Law of Negligence, 6th ed., sec. 52. “It is well settled that where there is uncertainty as to the existence of either negligence or contributory negligence, the question .is not one of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Richmond & Danville Railroad v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- H.M. Filer v. . New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Lane v. . Town of HancockNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Malloy v. Township of WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.