Holderfield v. Rummage Bros. Trucking Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBaknhill, J.
There is ample evidence of the negligent operation of the truck to require the submission of appropriate issues to the jury. We may assume, therefore, that the court below concluded that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It is upon this theory the cause is debated here.
Ordinarily, in actions founded on negligence, the mutual obligations of the parties are so apparent discussion thereof.is not required. But here the “duty” feature of negligence is determinative.
Negligence is a failure to perform some duty imposed by law. It may "be tbe breach of the duty…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Powers v. S. Sternberg & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Drum v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Tysinger v. Coble Dairy ProductsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- Short v. Chapman Ex Rel. RhoneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chemical Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. State Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.