Legal Opinion

Starnes v. McManus

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 29, 1965PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Shakp. J.

Undoubtedly, plaintiff proved the negligence he had effectively alleged. The allegations of reckless driving, stated almost in the words of the statute and without specification of wilful and wanton *640conduct, are merely the pleader’s conclusions, which add nothing to plaintiff’s allegations of ordinary negligence. Fleming v. Drye, 253 N.C. 545, 117 S.E. 2d 416; Troxler v. Motor Lines, 240 N.C. 420, 82 S.E. 2d 342. Plaintiff likewise proved the contributory negligence of his intestate and thus barred his recovery. Blevins v. France, 244 N.C. 334, 93 S.E. 2d 549. Knowing that defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blake v. MallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Blevins v. FranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Troxler v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Fleming v. DryeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Holloway Ex Rel. Holloway v. HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sink v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Williamson v. McNeillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API