Ramsey v. Standard Oil Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtHoke, J.
Ve bave carefully considered tbe record, and find no valid reason for disturbing tbe results of tbe trial. On tbe argument before us it was chiefly contended tbat appellant’s motion for nonsuit should bave been allowed, but in our opinion tbe position cannot be maintained. 'While tbe testimony tends to show tbat both kerosene and gasoline were conveyed to tbe large storage tanks in tbe county with circumspect care, there are facts in evidence as to defendant’s methods in tbe local distribution of these articles which clearly permit tbe inference of negligence as tbe proximate cause of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. DeselmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Balcum v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Ward v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. DeselmsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
- Paul v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lamb v. . BoylesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Stegall v. Catawba Oil Company of NCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Reynolds v. MurphSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Goodwin v. MisticosMississippi Supreme Court · 1949
- State v. . CorriherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928